| Wages to turnover. 16:49 - Apr 1 with 3567 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 20:23 - Apr 1 with 524 views | darkhorse28 |
| 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. |
I don’t normally respond. But no MO just far thumbs and never finding my reading glasses.
I can’t be bothered checking the numbers, because you made my point.
33% or 75% v’s circa 150%
One is elite, sustainable, and how succesful clubs should be run - the other is a Sheff Weds in waiting. You know our wages are frighteningly unsustainable without the revenue.
Mark bet the farm, for an ego rub.
You can nod, clap, argue over semantics, I won’t, it’s poor, it’s negligence. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:27 - Apr 1 with 503 views | darkhorse28 |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:22 - Apr 1 by 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 |
They have the revenue though, the whole point for us is, that season we did, and now we don’t.
Is it £90 million less in revenue, and a wage bill still over £69-65 million.
We pay more in wages than our entire revenue, and by a long way, not sustainable is an understatement - Chelsea, as much if a digs breakfast as they are, have the revenue .., although out of the champions league makes them interesting, popcorn at the ready.
Bad when as poor as they are, they still might be better run than us. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:29 - Apr 1 with 501 views | Illinoisblue |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:23 - Apr 1 by darkhorse28 |
I don’t normally respond. But no MO just far thumbs and never finding my reading glasses.
I can’t be bothered checking the numbers, because you made my point.
33% or 75% v’s circa 150%
One is elite, sustainable, and how succesful clubs should be run - the other is a Sheff Weds in waiting. You know our wages are frighteningly unsustainable without the revenue.
Mark bet the farm, for an ego rub.
You can nod, clap, argue over semantics, I won’t, it’s poor, it’s negligence. |
“I can’t be bothered checking the numbers”… but will make up numbers to fit my argument. And people like you are allowed to vote. |  |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:29 - Apr 1 with 498 views | itfcsuth |
Feels like a lot to unpick here, notably the comparison to other clubs player wage bill which looks like you’ve got incorrect. I have to say I don’t think £77m in the PL is horrendous, and would imagine that will be significantly reduced again with relegation clauses.
I do think we will see another strong revenue year will player sales and parachute payments, so don’t anticipate any issues.
I don’t think we need a set of accounts though to identify our biggest financial issue in the past 12/24 months, significantly overvaluing players, and I’m not sure who’s remit that is, but the buck ultimately stops with Ashton. |  | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:29 - Apr 1 with 498 views | darkhorse28 |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:41 - Apr 1 by Churchman |
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. |
Now that’s not very nice. The whole point is our wages to turnover now, in the EFL, where are THIS season, and the future if we don’t go up.
I didn’t work out last seasons wage to turnover because obviously with £100 million more turnover it’s not an issue - not being in the premier league and having the revenue to fund the continued excessive legacy wages, is the whole point. Sake.
Play the issue, not the man, no matter under Ashton his rings around you. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:34 - Apr 1 with 482 views | darkhorse28 |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:16 - Apr 1 by MrTown |
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]
|
The point is with EFL revenue, that Brentford are or aren’t 40% or 75% don’t change that.
Ours is circa 130% - that’s the whole point, they’re sustainable elite, had much better outcomes.
Us. The opposite. Not sustainable and poor outcomes, and if Mark isn’t accountable, and KM
Isn’t, who makes the decisions.
It’s negligent. You clap and do you.., it’s important, just down vote like you did for a year when people pointed out Ashtons ego was out of control. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:34 - Apr 1 with 482 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:23 - Apr 1 by darkhorse28 |
I don’t normally respond. But no MO just far thumbs and never finding my reading glasses.
I can’t be bothered checking the numbers, because you made my point.
33% or 75% v’s circa 150%
One is elite, sustainable, and how succesful clubs should be run - the other is a Sheff Weds in waiting. You know our wages are frighteningly unsustainable without the revenue.
Mark bet the farm, for an ego rub.
You can nod, clap, argue over semantics, I won’t, it’s poor, it’s negligence. |
You have trouble with numbers, don’t you.
Our wages to turnover ratio was 49%, not 150%. Far better than your poster child, and well within acceptable parameters.
Happy clapper, no. I believe in dealing with facts, not the fiction you peddle. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:38 - Apr 1 with 477 views | darkhorse28 |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:29 - Apr 1 by Illinoisblue |
“I can’t be bothered checking the numbers”… but will make up numbers to fit my argument. And people like you are allowed to vote. |
They aren’t made up…, the numbers to the penny doesn’t change the point.
Maybe obsessing about the messenger and not the message ‘might’ be why you get a lot of things wrong.
Whats our wage to turnover THIS season and if we stay in the EFL, what’s there’s, all the other teams more successful than us in and off the pitch, pick any of them. That.
And who said I was allowed to vote. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Wages to turnover. on 20:42 - Apr 1 with 460 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:27 - Apr 1 by darkhorse28 |
They have the revenue though, the whole point for us is, that season we did, and now we don’t.
Is it £90 million less in revenue, and a wage bill still over £69-65 million.
We pay more in wages than our entire revenue, and by a long way, not sustainable is an understatement - Chelsea, as much if a digs breakfast as they are, have the revenue .., although out of the champions league makes them interesting, popcorn at the ready.
Bad when as poor as they are, they still might be better run than us. |
Our revenue will not be down £90M. You’re ignoring parachute payments. I would estimate we’ll be close to £100M turnover, and a sizeable wage reduction due to relegation clauses, and some big wages off the books (Philips, Tuanzebe, Delap, Hutchinson, ….). Of course we recruited new players, but these would have been Championship levers (upper end yes, but still not near PL) level. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:46 - Apr 1 with 451 views | darkhorse28 |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:29 - Apr 1 by itfcsuth |
Feels like a lot to unpick here, notably the comparison to other clubs player wage bill which looks like you’ve got incorrect. I have to say I don’t think £77m in the PL is horrendous, and would imagine that will be significantly reduced again with relegation clauses.
I do think we will see another strong revenue year will player sales and parachute payments, so don’t anticipate any issues.
I don’t think we need a set of accounts though to identify our biggest financial issue in the past 12/24 months, significantly overvaluing players, and I’m not sure who’s remit that is, but the buck ultimately stops with Ashton. |
He’s massively enjoyed having resources to match his love of doing deals.
TBF to him, he’s the best I’ve seen at the club for getting deals done, that’s been a process that’s been superb.., and presents a risk when he leaves. Because it’s a skill and requires networks etc
Obviously the issue is I think he enjoys that FAR more than what’s probably a boring and lengthy talent ID process…, he was fine when he had limited resources, he wheeler dealer mentality thrived at a lower level.
Elite level though…, it’s ruthless, you need to be getting world class talent for th money we were spending on EFL talent…, that’s what the competition can and do do very well.
And it’s not a time dynamic or training ground etc - Marks been at it 35 years, if he could build elite networks, he’s taking his sweet time - he’s just way short at that level.
Its simply levels not time. He doesn’t have the skill set, th patience, the self awareness, the knowing where you are weak and mitigating it.
We still have a really poor squad relative to resources etc .., I don’t think one of them (Mats aside) would even have a 5% chance at that level…, not good because next time (if we are lucky) we start with £60 million wage bill, and not good enough, rather than £30 million.
It’ll be much harder, but a nice problem to have. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:48 - Apr 1 with 448 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:38 - Apr 1 by darkhorse28 |
They aren’t made up…, the numbers to the penny doesn’t change the point.
Maybe obsessing about the messenger and not the message ‘might’ be why you get a lot of things wrong.
Whats our wage to turnover THIS season and if we stay in the EFL, what’s there’s, all the other teams more successful than us in and off the pitch, pick any of them. That.
And who said I was allowed to vote. |
Your numbers are not out by pennies, but tens of millions. See my other post. This season our wages/turnover ratio will likely be 50-60%. Not far off where we were for the PL season. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:50 - Apr 1 with 441 views | darkhorse28 |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:34 - Apr 1 by SuffolkPunchFC |
You have trouble with numbers, don’t you.
Our wages to turnover ratio was 49%, not 150%. Far better than your poster child, and well within acceptable parameters.
Happy clapper, no. I believe in dealing with facts, not the fiction you peddle. |
One of us has trouble with numbers …, specifically dates.
You’re talking about last seasons turnover, I’m talking about smaller but similar wages, but with EFL revenue. Around £40 million against maybe £65 million in wages.
You get the point - or we can talk pennies all night that nobody knows because I doubt Mark will answer what this years Wages to Turnkver ratio is, because he will have a set of management accounts and will know.
I think THIS and next season if it’s EFL will define our future more than last seasons revenue number will - because we still have the liabilities - the revenue - less so. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:56 - Apr 1 with 435 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:50 - Apr 1 by darkhorse28 |
One of us has trouble with numbers …, specifically dates.
You’re talking about last seasons turnover, I’m talking about smaller but similar wages, but with EFL revenue. Around £40 million against maybe £65 million in wages.
You get the point - or we can talk pennies all night that nobody knows because I doubt Mark will answer what this years Wages to Turnkver ratio is, because he will have a set of management accounts and will know.
I think THIS and next season if it’s EFL will define our future more than last seasons revenue number will - because we still have the liabilities - the revenue - less so. |
See my post above. 100% about this season / the next accounts. You’ve misses factors that have serious material impact - parachute payments, large reduction in wage bill, player sales. You’re out by TENS OF MILLIONS. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 21:11 - Apr 1 with 415 views | MrTown |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:34 - Apr 1 by darkhorse28 |
The point is with EFL revenue, that Brentford are or aren’t 40% or 75% don’t change that.
Ours is circa 130% - that’s the whole point, they’re sustainable elite, had much better outcomes.
Us. The opposite. Not sustainable and poor outcomes, and if Mark isn’t accountable, and KM
Isn’t, who makes the decisions.
It’s negligent. You clap and do you.., it’s important, just down vote like you did for a year when people pointed out Ashtons ego was out of control. |
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. |  |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 21:14 - Apr 1 with 412 views | darkhorse28 |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:56 - Apr 1 by SuffolkPunchFC |
See my post above. 100% about this season / the next accounts. You’ve misses factors that have serious material impact - parachute payments, large reduction in wage bill, player sales. You’re out by TENS OF MILLIONS. |
Not really, obviously actual TV money etc varies. But with parachute money down, that still leaves us with higher wages than turnover - and looking at the filling season being £30 million less.
What will our wage bill be next summer in the EFL and with no parachute money.
The average parachute club revenue is around £60 million, there’s little point arguing over semantics.
The point is we will find it hard to move much of the liabilities, and revenue is falling off a cliff…, we’re already over 100% wages to turnover and if we aren’t promoted that problem has a cliff edge.
The point is we rolled the dice on wages specifically - and that could be a huge problem, or if we’re promoted, not a financial issue, just a decision making one.
Also signings are amortised - there are still a LOT of liabilities for payers we know a) aren’t good enough b) we paid such big wages to, we’ll struggle to move on.
The liability side doesn’t look bad relative to premier league turnover, but shocking relative to EFL turnover. And we 100% have EFL turnover, it amazes me the amnesia around last season, I know it wasn’t great. But it 100% did happen.
We did spend on facilities. Which we wouldn’t have to again, there’s a positive. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 21:15 - Apr 1 with 408 views | itfcsuth |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:46 - Apr 1 by darkhorse28 |
He’s massively enjoyed having resources to match his love of doing deals.
TBF to him, he’s the best I’ve seen at the club for getting deals done, that’s been a process that’s been superb.., and presents a risk when he leaves. Because it’s a skill and requires networks etc
Obviously the issue is I think he enjoys that FAR more than what’s probably a boring and lengthy talent ID process…, he was fine when he had limited resources, he wheeler dealer mentality thrived at a lower level.
Elite level though…, it’s ruthless, you need to be getting world class talent for th money we were spending on EFL talent…, that’s what the competition can and do do very well.
And it’s not a time dynamic or training ground etc - Marks been at it 35 years, if he could build elite networks, he’s taking his sweet time - he’s just way short at that level.
Its simply levels not time. He doesn’t have the skill set, th patience, the self awareness, the knowing where you are weak and mitigating it.
We still have a really poor squad relative to resources etc .., I don’t think one of them (Mats aside) would even have a 5% chance at that level…, not good because next time (if we are lucky) we start with £60 million wage bill, and not good enough, rather than £30 million.
It’ll be much harder, but a nice problem to have. |
He loves doing the deals, I’m not entirely convinced he’s good at them though, spent a lot of money on too many misses for my liking.
I do think you raise valid point about where we will be if we are promoted, because you’d imagine we’d need another big reshuffle, are we in a better or worse position than the last time we were promoted, I don’t know. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 21:27 - Apr 1 with 389 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:38 - Apr 1 by darkhorse28 |
They aren’t made up…, the numbers to the penny doesn’t change the point.
Maybe obsessing about the messenger and not the message ‘might’ be why you get a lot of things wrong.
Whats our wage to turnover THIS season and if we stay in the EFL, what’s there’s, all the other teams more successful than us in and off the pitch, pick any of them. That.
And who said I was allowed to vote. |
Your numbers are made up. Maybe not by you, but they’re make up nonetheless. Of course our revenue has dropped off massively this year. To keep comparing us to Brentford who are still in the PL is nonsensical. Why don’t you compare us to other clubs in their first season after relegation from the PL. Go back 3 or 4 seasons. That would at least be relevant and may be interesting to people. There may even be a story in there that fits your agenda, but you’ll need to put the work in to gather the evidence. |  |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 21:40 - Apr 1 with 375 views | Illinoisblue |
| Wages to turnover. on 21:14 - Apr 1 by darkhorse28 |
Not really, obviously actual TV money etc varies. But with parachute money down, that still leaves us with higher wages than turnover - and looking at the filling season being £30 million less.
What will our wage bill be next summer in the EFL and with no parachute money.
The average parachute club revenue is around £60 million, there’s little point arguing over semantics.
The point is we will find it hard to move much of the liabilities, and revenue is falling off a cliff…, we’re already over 100% wages to turnover and if we aren’t promoted that problem has a cliff edge.
The point is we rolled the dice on wages specifically - and that could be a huge problem, or if we’re promoted, not a financial issue, just a decision making one.
Also signings are amortised - there are still a LOT of liabilities for payers we know a) aren’t good enough b) we paid such big wages to, we’ll struggle to move on.
The liability side doesn’t look bad relative to premier league turnover, but shocking relative to EFL turnover. And we 100% have EFL turnover, it amazes me the amnesia around last season, I know it wasn’t great. But it 100% did happen.
We did spend on facilities. Which we wouldn’t have to again, there’s a positive. |
You make it sound like prem players would be happy on 5k a week. Have we overspent on some baffling signings? No doubt. That’s the price of doing business. If the aim is to become a Brighton or a Brentford, then smart player trading is the way. | |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 21:52 - Apr 1 with 367 views | itfcsuth |
| Wages to turnover. on 21:40 - Apr 1 by Illinoisblue |
You make it sound like prem players would be happy on 5k a week. Have we overspent on some baffling signings? No doubt. That’s the price of doing business. If the aim is to become a Brighton or a Brentford, then smart player trading is the way. |
It’s almost the only way to become sustainable in the PL.
I’m sure that Brighton and Bournemouth have had their blunders in the market though, and I think we have in the valuation of players as well.
I’m not sure we had the right infrastructure to be honest when we went up, particularly around Talent ID, I know Tony Bloom system we used was pulled when we reached the PL, and I think we reverted to the only market we really knew, the domestic one.
I think KMc has said, going forward, to bridge that gap, you have to find undervalued talent from further afield for better bang for your buck. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 22:14 - Apr 1 with 353 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Wages to turnover. on 21:14 - Apr 1 by darkhorse28 |
Not really, obviously actual TV money etc varies. But with parachute money down, that still leaves us with higher wages than turnover - and looking at the filling season being £30 million less.
What will our wage bill be next summer in the EFL and with no parachute money.
The average parachute club revenue is around £60 million, there’s little point arguing over semantics.
The point is we will find it hard to move much of the liabilities, and revenue is falling off a cliff…, we’re already over 100% wages to turnover and if we aren’t promoted that problem has a cliff edge.
The point is we rolled the dice on wages specifically - and that could be a huge problem, or if we’re promoted, not a financial issue, just a decision making one.
Also signings are amortised - there are still a LOT of liabilities for payers we know a) aren’t good enough b) we paid such big wages to, we’ll struggle to move on.
The liability side doesn’t look bad relative to premier league turnover, but shocking relative to EFL turnover. And we 100% have EFL turnover, it amazes me the amnesia around last season, I know it wasn’t great. But it 100% did happen.
We did spend on facilities. Which we wouldn’t have to again, there’s a positive. |
Show your working, and I’ll point out where you’re wrong. Go check NOTE 3 of the accounts, and extrapolate from there.
Turnover EXCLUDING PL TV money was ~£40M. That is unlikely to be significantly different this year - may even increase marginally. Parachute payments are typically ~£50-60M. Player sales, loan income etc can easily add up £10M.
There’s the £100M.
Player wages will drop for all the reasons I’ve posted before. £50-60M is not unreasonable to assume. That has wages way lower than turnover.
Looking at recent accounts for parachute payment clubs, the Blades received £58M parachute payment, and Luton similar. Sheffield’s commercial revenue is significantly lower than ours, and they still managed £80M turnover for last year. Luton commercial revenue is insignificant (small ground and fan base, limited sponsorship) - more like a league 1 club, so not a good reference - even though their revenue was close to £70M. Burnley accounts aren’t available.
Leeds turnover as a parachute club was nearly £130M. Of course, their commercial revenue is higher than ours - bigger ground and fan base. As a 2nd year parachute payment club they received £51M
Easy to see us at £100M - your £40M is ludicrously low.
If you want to go and pull some actual figures from accounts to counter my workings, I’ll listen - otherwise this is the last I say on the subject, as there’s no point debating your unsubstantiated, made-up numbers. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 22:14 - Apr 1 with 352 views | Illinoisblue |
| Wages to turnover. on 21:52 - Apr 1 by itfcsuth |
It’s almost the only way to become sustainable in the PL.
I’m sure that Brighton and Bournemouth have had their blunders in the market though, and I think we have in the valuation of players as well.
I’m not sure we had the right infrastructure to be honest when we went up, particularly around Talent ID, I know Tony Bloom system we used was pulled when we reached the PL, and I think we reverted to the only market we really knew, the domestic one.
I think KMc has said, going forward, to bridge that gap, you have to find undervalued talent from further afield for better bang for your buck. |
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. | |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 22:23 - Apr 1 with 343 views | brazil1981 |
Darkhorse28…..
Bore off please!
You’ve obviously clearly got a deep obsessive hatred of Ashton (bizarre as I expect you’ve never met the bloke)!
In what World has he “gambled the Club’s future away” to use your words? Absolutely ridiculous comment!
I’ve not met a single fan in real life who wants KM gone. Regarding Ashton most I’ve spoken to are only mildly annoyed about last week’s episode and think he has done a decent job that apart - sorry but that’s the reality!
Maybe you’re a Norwich fan who is trying to bring us down from within….either way you seem to have a very weird agenda for genuine Town fan! | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 09:34 - Apr 2 with 278 views | tractorboy1978 |
| 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. |
Norwich's wages the last time they were in the PL were £118m. Leeds wages in their 23/24 Championship season were £84m. £77m on wages is absolute chicken feed by PL standards.
The accounts look very healthy. We have the profit on Omari to come into next year's numbers too. We aren't going to be under pressure to sell this summer for financial reasons. [Post edited 2 Apr 9:34]
| | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 10:12 - Apr 2 with 251 views | RetroBlue |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:29 - Apr 1 by Illinoisblue |
“I can’t be bothered checking the numbers”… but will make up numbers to fit my argument. And people like you are allowed to vote. |
tbf its a ...bit like politicians really innit ... "making up the numbers " etc |  |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 11:10 - Apr 2 with 227 views | darkhorse28 |
| Wages to turnover. on 09:34 - Apr 2 by tractorboy1978 |
Norwich's wages the last time they were in the PL were £118m. Leeds wages in their 23/24 Championship season were £84m. £77m on wages is absolute chicken feed by PL standards.
The accounts look very healthy. We have the profit on Omari to come into next year's numbers too. We aren't going to be under pressure to sell this summer for financial reasons. [Post edited 2 Apr 9:34]
|
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. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
