SHA
Small Heath Alliance
Replying to Wakojako1875
21:43, Wed 8 Apr
Wakojako1875Won’t be long until Mr Popodopolus dissects our new accounts. 3-2-1
He’s over it already.
Accounts now published
Wardy 06:00, Wed 8 Apr
He’s over it already.
Nattt
-2
Replying to bluearmyfaction
21:52, Wed 8 Apr
bluearmyfactionSurely they’d welcome it. What’s likely to increase profits? Spending caps would be number one. It’s how American sports work…
Championship clubs have run at a combined loss of £3bn in the last ten years, which is a slightly shorter time period than PSR has been in place in the EFL. How the eff have these regulations helped increase profits?
Replying to Nattt
22:36, Wed 8 Apr
Not current but possible future. Hence big American involvement now to make it so.
History repeating. Spending caps in 1901 stopped the haemorrhaging of league clubs. Then it was a crude maximum wage. Better tech now.
History repeating. Spending caps in 1901 stopped the haemorrhaging of league clubs. Then it was a crude maximum wage. Better tech now.
Replying to Nattt
23:30, Wed 8 Apr
NatThat may not be correct still, I dunno how Maguire estimates it but the staff costs include all payments, including bonuses, NI, ect, for all staff.Mayor, do you now want to acknowledge that I was right all along when I said circa Nov 2024 that our average earner would be on five figure weekly wages and you went to great lengths to discredit my claim as such?
I'd estimate a lot of our players salary last season came from promotion bonuses, appearance fees, signing-on fees, goals/clean sheet ect ect.
Nattt
-2
Replying to Wagner’s Dream
08:22, Thu 9 Apr
Wagner’s DreamNatThat may not be correct still, I dunno how Maguire estimates it but the staff costs include all payments, including bonuses, NI, ect, for all staff.Mayor, do you now want to acknowledge that I was right all along when I said circa Nov 2024 that our average earner would be on five figure weekly wages and you went to great lengths to discredit my claim as such?
I'd estimate a lot of our players salary last season came from promotion bonuses, appearance fees, signing-on fees, goals/clean sheet ect ect.
If you'd read the tweet, you'd also notice that the summary of average weekly wages is across 300 odd employees. Allowing for high ranking members of team and club management, circa 10% of those would be on anything approaching footballer earnings (including the footballers obviously) so their average salaries are clearly pulling the average up.
Anyone can see that our first team players last year were on average weekly earnings well into five figures before bonuses and God knows what else, as I claimed in November 2024 (whilst Mayor poo pooed it).
As fun as last season was as well, it is clear that in the medium to long term that most of those players aren't going to be in our plans. I think we have been pretty wasteful money wise, this season moreso but last season we were gluttinous too.
Take Ben Davies for example - we were covering the best part of his £30k a week salary at Rangers. Did we really need to do that? Did we really need to invest that much money into a centre-half in League One who (as I also correctly called at the time) was never going to make the jump with us (and as it turns out with his lack of game time at lowly Oxford) or anybody else to the Championship?
As fun as last season was, were overindulged from a spending POV when you actually anaylise in the cold light of day how many of those players could be counted as medium to long term investments.
NatWagner’s DreamNatThat may not be correct still, I dunno how Maguire estimates it but the staff costs include all payments, including bonuses, NI, ect, for all staff.Mayor, do you now want to acknowledge that I was right all along when I said circa Nov 2024 that our average earner would be on five figure weekly wages and you went to great lengths to discredit my claim as such?
I'd estimate a lot of our players salary last season came from promotion bonuses, appearance fees, signing-on fees, goals/clean sheet ect ect.
If you'd read the tweet, you'd also notice that the summary of average weekly wages is across 300 odd employees. Allowing for high ranking members of team and club management, circa 10% of those would be on anything approaching footballer earnings (including the footballers obviously) so their average salaries are clearly pulling the average up.
Anyone can see that our first team players last year were on average weekly earnings well into five figures before bonuses and God knows what else, as I claimed in November 2024 (whilst Mayor poo pooed it).
As fun as last season was as well, it is clear that in the medium to long term that most of those players aren't going to be in our plans. I think we have been pretty wasteful money wise, this season moreso but last season we were gluttinous too.
Take Ben Davies for example - we were covering the best part of his £30k a week salary at Rangers. Did we really need to do that? Did we really need to invest that much money into a centre-half in League One who (as I also correctly called at the time) was never going to make the jump with us (and as it turns out with his lack of game time at lowly Oxford) or anybody else to the Championship?
As fun as last season was, were overindulged from a spending POV when you actually anaylise in the cold light of day how many of those players could be counted as medium to long term investments.
You could also argue building such a league 1 super team, actually stunted our progress this year, as tactically we didn’t have to adapt etc
NatDid we really need to win the league by such a large margin? I would've been happy to win it by a point and keep a load of cash in the bank.Wagner’s DreamNatThat may not be correct still, I dunno how Maguire estimates it but the staff costs include all payments, including bonuses, NI, ect, for all staff.Mayor, do you now want to acknowledge that I was right all along when I said circa Nov 2024 that our average earner would be on five figure weekly wages and you went to great lengths to discredit my claim as such?
I'd estimate a lot of our players salary last season came from promotion bonuses, appearance fees, signing-on fees, goals/clean sheet ect ect.
If you'd read the tweet, you'd also notice that the summary of average weekly wages is across 300 odd employees. Allowing for high ranking members of team and club management, circa 10% of those would be on anything approaching footballer earnings (including the footballers obviously) so their average salaries are clearly pulling the average up.
Anyone can see that our first team players last year were on average weekly earnings well into five figures before bonuses and God knows what else, as I claimed in November 2024 (whilst Mayor poo pooed it).
As fun as last season was as well, it is clear that in the medium to long term that most of those players aren't going to be in our plans. I think we have been pretty wasteful money wise, this season moreso but last season we were gluttinous too.
Take Ben Davies for example - we were covering the best part of his £30k a week salary at Rangers. Did we really need to do that? Did we really need to invest that much money into a centre-half in League One who (as I also correctly called at the time) was never going to make the jump with us (and as it turns out with his lack of game time at lowly Oxford) or anybody else to the Championship?
As fun as last season was, were overindulged from a spending POV when you actually anaylise in the cold light of day how many of those players could be counted as medium to long term investments.
Wagner’s DreamNatThat may not be correct still, I dunno how Maguire estimates it but the staff costs include all payments, including bonuses, NI, ect, for all staff.Mayor, do you now want to acknowledge that I was right all along when I said circa Nov 2024 that our average earner would be on five figure weekly wages and you went to great lengths to discredit my claim as such?
I'd estimate a lot of our players salary last season came from promotion bonuses, appearance fees, signing-on fees, goals/clean sheet ect ect.
If you'd read the tweet, you'd also notice that the summary of average weekly wages is across 300 odd employees. Allowing for high ranking members of team and club management, circa 10% of those would be on anything approaching footballer earnings (including the footballers obviously) so their average salaries are clearly pulling the average up.
Anyone can see that our first team players last year were on average weekly earnings well into five figures before bonuses and God knows what else, as I claimed in November 2024 (whilst Mayor poo pooed it).
As fun as last season was as well, it is clear that in the medium to long term that most of those players aren't going to be in our plans. I think we have been pretty wasteful money wise, this season moreso but last season we were gluttinous too.
Take Ben Davies for example - we were covering the best part of his £30k a week salary at Rangers. Did we really need to do that? Did we really need to invest that much money into a centre-half in League One who (as I also correctly called at the time) was never going to make the jump with us (and as it turns out with his lack of game time at lowly Oxford) or anybody else to the Championship?
As fun as last season was, were overindulged from a spending POV when you actually anaylise in the cold light of day how many of those players could be counted as medium to long term investments.
We didn't need to do any of it
We paid a premium to pretty much take the risk of missing out on promotion away
It was the cost of relegation that a club with super ambitious owners who want prem football tommorow felt they had to pay
Replying to Nattt
09:12, Thu 9 Apr
NatI've heard this theory before, but I really don't see arch capitalist American hedge fund bosses being attracted to something by increased regulation.
The fact that they bought us supports my theory more than it supports yours! Do you really think we'd have been as attractive a proposition if our competitors had fewer limits on their spending power? I just can't see how that makes any sense.
NatIf you'd read the tweet, you'd also notice that the summary of average weekly wages is across 300 odd employees.
"Wages £38.9m
Employees 358
Ave weekly wage £16,500"
Not sure what the £16,500 refers to - but it cannot be the average weekly wage of the 358 employers mentioned as then the wage bill would then have been circa £300 million??!!
NatbluearmyfactionSurely they’d welcome it. What’s likely to increase profits? Spending caps would be number one. It’s how American sports work…
Championship clubs have run at a combined loss of £3bn in the last ten years, which is a slightly shorter time period than PSR has been in place in the EFL. How the eff have these regulations helped increase profits?
PSR hasn't fixed the problem but it's definitely made clubs more sustainable and a bit more profitable. Like I said it hasn't fully fixed the problem but saying it hasn't improved things is just wrong.
Has it created different problems of course. But just look at the amount of clubs that went insolvent now compared to before
MikejkNatbluearmyfactionSurely they’d welcome it. What’s likely to increase profits? Spending caps would be number one. It’s how American sports work…
Championship clubs have run at a combined loss of £3bn in the last ten years, which is a slightly shorter time period than PSR has been in place in the EFL. How the eff have these regulations helped increase profits?
PSR hasn't fixed the problem but it's definitely made clubs more sustainable and a bit more profitable. Like I said it hasn't fully fixed the problem but saying it hasn't improved things is just wrong.
Has it? Please explain how.
Has it created different problems of course. But just look at the amount of clubs that went insolvent now compared to before
The most rigid forms of PSR only affects clubs who have played in the top two tiers of English football since they came in. Bar a spike around the early 2000s, which was as a direct result of ITV Digital collapsing, clubs at the second tier level weren't getting into shit financially any more regularly than they are now in the modern era, and only one Premier League club has ever gone onto administration.
NatMikejkNatbluearmyfactionSurely they’d welcome it. What’s likely to increase profits? Spending caps would be number one. It’s how American sports work…
Championship clubs have run at a combined loss of £3bn in the last ten years, which is a slightly shorter time period than PSR has been in place in the EFL. How the eff have these regulations helped increase profits?
PSR hasn't fixed the problem but it's definitely made clubs more sustainable and a bit more profitable. Like I said it hasn't fully fixed the problem but saying it hasn't improved things is just wrong.
Has it? Please explain how.
Has it created different problems of course. But just look at the amount of clubs that went insolvent now compared to before
The most rigid forms of PSR only affects clubs who have played in the top two tiers of English football since they came in. Bar a spike around the early 2000s, which was as a direct result of ITV Digital collapsing, clubs at the second tier level weren't getting into shit financially any more regularly than they are now in the modern era, and only one Premier League club has ever gone onto administration.
Prior to PSR clubs in the prem weren't making a profit. There's been a lot more instances after PSR came in clubs that have made a profit over a season. It was only until COVID that they stopped making profits and that's slowed a lot of things down. Also we haven't seen a Portsmouth, Leeds, Wimbledon, Leicester or Derby since.
Using the example of the ITV digital crash all those clubs went insolvent then or not long after. Then compare with COVID how many did the same?
It's okay to point out flaws in PSR etc but to say it hasn't helped anyone or improved things isn't true. It's created different problems but everything weren't as rosey as everyone like to make out
Replying to Nattt
11:25, Thu 9 Apr
NatMikejkNatbluearmyfactionSurely they’d welcome it. What’s likely to increase profits? Spending caps would be number one. It’s how American sports work…
Championship clubs have run at a combined loss of £3bn in the last ten years, which is a slightly shorter time period than PSR has been in place in the EFL. How the eff have these regulations helped increase profits?
PSR hasn't fixed the problem but it's definitely made clubs more sustainable and a bit more profitable. Like I said it hasn't fully fixed the problem but saying it hasn't improved things is just wrong.
Has it? Please explain how.
Has it created different problems of course. But just look at the amount of clubs that went insolvent now compared to before
The most rigid forms of PSR only affects clubs who have played in the top two tiers of English football since they came in. Bar a spike around the early 2000s, which was as a direct result of ITV Digital collapsing, clubs at the second tier level weren't getting into shit financially any more regularly than they are now in the modern era, and only one Premier League club has ever gone onto administration.
Across the piece, it's hard to argue that FFP / PSR hasn't imposed better financial discipline on clubs and acted as a counterbalance to owners who are incentivised to gamble, especially in the championship.
Interestingly the £3bn cumulative losses over 10 years equates to £12.5 million per club per year which is almost exactly what they are allowed to lose by the regs.
The whole thing is a compromise between the authorities understandably wanting to avoid clubs being unduly reckless and the owners who equally understandably want to be able to "invest" so it's never going to be perfect.
Sheep2
1
Replying to Overhit corner
11:36, Thu 9 Apr
I'm not sure PSR makes a massive difference.
The Premier League operates on a rolling cycle.
In the first year of a new TV deal the clubs tend to make a profit. Then over the 3 or 4 years all the contracts are renewed at higher wages and by the last year almost all of them are making a loss - based on the new TV deal being higher. This has been the cycle for 30+ years.
It's only a problem if you drop out of the PL and have massively committed to contracts.
The £billion in the Championship is skewed by two things. The parachute payments and the clubs that have exploded - Sheffield Wednesday, Bolton & Derby. The 3 have made losses in excess of £500m between them. There must have been 40+ clubs in the Championship over 10 years and 3 clubs are responsible for a very significant portion of the losses.
The parachute payment clubs often make a big loss as well. Though that depends on when they account for it in part. Some of them write off a lot in the relegation season. Some spend a lot to go back up. Leeds lost £49m in their last season in the EFL. It's an amazing amount - Some of it was promotion bonuses but they'd still have lost £40m without that.
The Premier League operates on a rolling cycle.
In the first year of a new TV deal the clubs tend to make a profit. Then over the 3 or 4 years all the contracts are renewed at higher wages and by the last year almost all of them are making a loss - based on the new TV deal being higher. This has been the cycle for 30+ years.
It's only a problem if you drop out of the PL and have massively committed to contracts.
The £billion in the Championship is skewed by two things. The parachute payments and the clubs that have exploded - Sheffield Wednesday, Bolton & Derby. The 3 have made losses in excess of £500m between them. There must have been 40+ clubs in the Championship over 10 years and 3 clubs are responsible for a very significant portion of the losses.
The parachute payment clubs often make a big loss as well. Though that depends on when they account for it in part. Some of them write off a lot in the relegation season. Some spend a lot to go back up. Leeds lost £49m in their last season in the EFL. It's an amazing amount - Some of it was promotion bonuses but they'd still have lost £40m without that.