Wages crisis?

[Guest Gemmill]

No one was suggesting that i dont think, we were just discussing the right denominator for the wage bill to reflect average wages amongst the proper/footballing staff.

 

I reckon around 250 of that full time staff figure of 307 would probably account for only £7.5m or so of the £50m wage bill.  Average wage £30k.  That might even be a bit high.

[Guest Gemmill]

And yes, I'm speculating.

[ChezGiven]

I presume you have but i think you can discount the part-time staff as negligible.

[Guest Gemmill]

Aye, they wouldn't even register really.  A few hundred thousand at the very most I would have thought.

[Parky]

Where the fuck is Macbeth on this thread??!!

[ChezGiven]

Lead on McDuff 

[koven]

We're wasting our time arguing this one out tbh.  I think the ratio of our wage bill to our turnover is a concern.  And I've seen someone (not you) claim that this will be rectified this season because of the UEFA Cup - well we're not gonna be in Europe next season.  So if the only time we can achieve a "sensible" wages to turnover ratio is when we're in Europe then we've got an even bigger problem.

 

In my opinion, we pay these players far too much just to get them to sign, and once you do that you're f***** - if they play well, they expect improved contracts, if they play poorly, you can't shift them because no one else will match their wages.  The number of players that we've had problems shifting because no one else will match their wages is proof enough that we are paying above market rate - how many times do you hear the "wages will be a problem" comment when players are set to leave NUFC.  I think it's something that needs sorting out. 

 

Don't get me wrong, whilst I don't think there is a wage crisis at the club or that we should be worried by the cost of wages that doesn't mean I'm happy with them.  There is always an argument for reducing the wage bill and when we sign players we should be paying them as little as possible.

 

The difficulty comes because I think good players = high wages = success.  Of course we don't always (read: rarely) get it right, but it's no surprise that the top 4 teams have the highest wage bills in the league.

 

And when we have trouble offloading players it's usually because we've signed them when they look good and they end up rubbish.  Take Hugo Viana, he was young european footballer of the year and said to be better than Christiano Ronaldo by some.  What a waste of money that was.  And even Luque was a hot prospect.  Deportivo paid more for him than us and he did well there.  Another waste of money.

 

Simply put, I don't think we can argue in other threads that we need to sign brilliant players and improve the team while saying we need to reduce the wage bill in another.  The 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

[koven]

No one was suggesting that i dont think, we were just discussing the right denominator for the wage bill to reflect average wages amongst the proper/footballing staff.

 

I reckon around 250 of that full time staff figure of 307 would probably account for only £7.5m or so of the £50m wage bill.  Average wage £30k.  That might even be a bit high.

 

They might but if we take Owen's and Dyer's wages at what we think they are, then you can effectively take another £8.5 million off the total, since these 2 will skew the average.

[James]

It is a problem, not a crisis.

 

Although the wages/turnover ratio is ridiculously high, and lack of European football next season would make this even more than an issue.

 

However, the £30m extra per season every team will receive will mean that there is no short-term threat, which means that we are not going to immediately have to flog off all our best players, and instead we can choose to be shrewd with our dealings over the next five years to gradually bring our ratio in line with the PL average.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

No one was suggesting that i dont think, we were just discussing the right denominator for the wage bill to reflect average wages amongst the proper/footballing staff.

 

I reckon around 250 of that full time staff figure of 307 would probably account for only £7.5m or so of the £50m wage bill.  Average wage £30k.  That might even be a bit high.

 

They might but if we take Owen's and Dyer's wages at what we think they are, then you can effectively take another £8.5 million off the total, since these 2 will skew the average.

 

Why would you want to do that?

 

They are playing staff (alledgedly) and therefore their wage forms part of the average, doesn't matter if they skew it or not. Its all well and good saying that if we weren't paying Owen this and Dyer that we wouldn't have a problem. We are paying them it, and we do have a problem

[PCW1983]

Just wait for freddy's most famous quote, other then the Geordie dogs thing....."we are paying them rolls royce wages so expect rolls royce performance".......is it not Ford who own Rolls now lol

[koven]

No one was suggesting that i dont think, we were just discussing the right denominator for the wage bill to reflect average wages amongst the proper/footballing staff.

 

I reckon around 250 of that full time staff figure of 307 would probably account for only £7.5m or so of the £50m wage bill.  Average wage £30k.  That might even be a bit high.

 

They might but if we take Owen's and Dyer's wages at what we think they are, then you can effectively take another £8.5 million off the total, since these 2 will skew the average.

 

Why would you want to do that?

 

They are playing staff (alledgedly) and therefore their wage forms part of the average, doesn't matter if they skew it or not. Its all well and good saying that if we weren't paying Owen this and Dyer that we wouldn't have a problem. We are paying them it, and we do have a problem

 

It does matter.  We weren't trying to find the average wage at the club.  We are trying to work out what the average player is on.  I.e. what players like Taylor/Baba/Carr/Bramble earn.  If you include the £5million Owen earns every year and the £3.5 million Dyer does, then it's gonna look like Taylor and them earn more than they actually do.  That's why it would skew the average.

 

You're right if we wanted a mathematical average I would include those players but what good would that figure do.  I've already explained why I don't think the total is something to be worried about.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

Just wait for freddy's most famous quote, other then the Geordie dogs thing....."we are paying them rolls royce wages so expect rolls royce performance".......is it not Ford who own Rolls now lol

 

Ford are selling Aston Martin because having luxury brands is not conducive to getting yourself out of a financial hole quickly when the sharehoilders are on your back

[macbeth]

Did you decide to stop reading there? lol

 

If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average.  That was an oversimplification.  Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays?

 

We have something like 800 employees not 28.  Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop.

 

And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week?  Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet.  All players get overpaid in the premier league.

 

Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing.  Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us.  Now who overpays?

 

I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it.  The figures don't bear that out.

 

Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers.

 

But not so good with words?

 

From the 2005 accounts -

The club have roughly 300 full time employees, and roughly 1000 part-time staff.

The wages and salaries for all of those comes to £44.5m. On top of that the club paid £5.2m in Social security costs, and then a further £0.4k in other pension costs. This came to the total for that year of £50.2m. The total for 2006 was £56.6m but I don't have the breakdown at hand. (Anyone any idea wher I've put it  :-[ )

 

Lets play numbers ...

 

The 1000 part-time wiill be match-day people. So for 25 home games, at £50 (?) a game woudl be £1.2m.

 

If we say that the footbalnlers and the management total 35 bodies, then that leaves about 270 other full-time staff to run the business. Lets say they have the average UK wage of £20k per year. That would cost ~ £5.4m to finance.

 

This leaves the 35 "football" employees to share the rest. This means 44.5 - 1.2 - 5.4 = £37.8m

 

Looks like just over £1m per year for each of them. Of course there will be extremes, at both ends, but on average the figure looks like £1m to me.

 

++++++++++

 

Deloittes who look in to these things, say that football clubs should run themsleves with the target of payroll costs (in total, so the £50.2m not the £44.5m) ideally be no more than 50% of income. Up to 2003 the club extolled the fact that they were one of only two sides who met this criterion. Then they just lost the plot. The graph below shows the rise of the wages:income ratio, as well as the general rise in wages.

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/payrol5.gif

 

Now whichever way we try and cut it up, and try and work individual player amounts, the trend is steeply upwards.

 

The issue is two-fold. The wages are rising, so 76% up in 4 years. This is ridiculous. The other issue is that our income has only gone up 17% in the same time.

 

Someone at the club has just not been in control of things. High wages on falling income is why the club has been losing over £1m per month for the last reported 18 months. The hope has to be that the new CEO will bring in sound financial knowledge that has clearly been missing for the last few years. Luckily the Sky money leaps next year. The sad thing is that that money has aleady been spent. The extra income will only take us to the point we should be at. For other clubs the money will be a bonus, for us is it is a life-raft.

[Howaythelads]

Koven makes good sense, imo. Here we have a classic example of one person offering a different view being slated by everybody else simply because he doesn't agree with everybody else. He makes very good point, some of you just don't want to hear an alternative comment though.

 

I think it is true that when looking at overseas player the club has to up the ante to attract these players away from the Capital. I think this is almost certain to be true no matter how much people may not want to believe it.

 

We're not talking about overseas players though are we?  I mean we're overpaying Luque, but we're also overpaying a lot of homegrown players too.

 

By the way, look at koven's posting style.  He wanted a reaction from people and he got one.  Anyway, my only response to him was to dismantle his "£35k average wage is fine" argument, when clearly the majority of our squad should be nowhere near £35k a week.  28 players at an average wage of £35k a week is absolutely mental.

 

We probably are overpaying some homegrown players, I wouldn't doubt it and I didn't say we weren't.

 

I see nothing untoward in the posting style of Koven. It's no different to anybody else who posts an opinion, other than that it's a differing opinion from the mainstream.

[Howaythelads]

Isnt that the problem though HTL, the sort of player who only accepts to play for the club for a premium?

 

I think the general feeling in this thread is that, given the actual ability of players like Parker, Dyer, Luque etc, they are being overpaid and that a performance related payment structure would be better.

 

I agree that attracting people to the club is hard i just think they should be remunerated so that they get the premium if they actually play and perform. 

 

Possibly, but we're stuck with the vicious circle. The only way to overcome that barrier is to be successful, manure is a shite place imo but top players still go there. The problem is to reach that level of success we have to attract top players and even that doesn't guarantee anything.

[Parky]

Did you decide to stop reading there? lol

 

If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average.  That was an oversimplification.  Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays?

 

We have something like 800 employees not 28.  Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop.

 

And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week?  Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet.  All players get overpaid in the premier league.

 

Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing.  Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us.  Now who overpays?

 

I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it.  The figures don't bear that out.

 

Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers.

 

But not so good with words?

 

From the 2005 accounts -

The club have roughly 300 full time employees, and roughly 1000 part-time staff.

The wages and salaries for all of those comes to £44.5m. On top of that the club paid £5.2m in Social security costs, and then a further £0.4k in other pension costs. This came to the total for that year of £50.2m. The total for 2006 was £56.6m but I don't have the breakdown at hand. (Anyone any idea wher I've put it  :-[ )

 

Lets play numbers ...

 

The 1000 part-time wiill be match-day people. So for 25 home games, at £50 (?) a game woudl be £1.2m.

 

If we say that the footbalnlers and the management total 35 bodies, then that leaves about 270 other full-time staff to run the business. Lets say they have the average UK wage of £20k per year. That would cost ~ £5.4m to finance.

 

This leaves the 35 "football" employees to share the rest. This means 44.5 - 1.2 - 5.4 = £37.8m

 

Looks like just over £1m per year for each of them. Of course there will be extremes, at both ends, but on average the figure looks like £1m to me.

 

++++++++++

 

Deloittes who look in to these things, say that football clubs should run themsleves with the target of payroll costs (in total, so the £50.2m not the £44.5m) ideally be no more than 50% of income. Up to 2003 the club extolled the fact that they were one of only two sides who met this criterion. Then they just lost the plot. The graph below shows the rise of the wages:income ratio, as well as the general rise in wages.

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/payrol5.gif

 

Now whichever way we try and cut it up, and try and work individual player amounts, the trend is steeply upwards.

 

The issue is two-fold. The wages are rising, so 76% up in 4 years. This is ridiculous. The other issue is that our income has only gone up 17% in the same time.

 

Someone at the club has just not been in control of things. High wages on falling income is why the club has been losing over £1m per month for the last reported 18 months. The hope has to be that the new CEO will bring in sound financial knowledge that has clearly been missing for the last few years. Luckily the Sky money leaps next year. The sad thing is that that money has aleady been spent. The extra income will only take us to the point we should be at. For other clubs the money will be a bonus, for us is it is a life-raft.

 

About feking time Macca boy!

[Howaythelads]

Did you decide to stop reading there? lol

 

If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average.  That was an oversimplification.  Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays?

 

We have something like 800 employees not 28.  Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop.

 

And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week?  Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet.  All players get overpaid in the premier league.

 

Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing.  Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us.  Now who overpays?

 

I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it.  The figures don't bear that out.

 

Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers.

 

But not so good with words?

 

From the 2005 accounts -

The club have roughly 300 full time employees, and roughly 1000 part-time staff.

The wages and salaries for all of those comes to £44.5m. On top of that the club paid £5.2m in Social security costs, and then a further £0.4k in other pension costs. This came to the total for that year of £50.2m. The total for 2006 was £56.6m but I don't have the breakdown at hand. (Anyone any idea wher I've put it  :-[ )

 

Lets play numbers ...

 

The 1000 part-time wiill be match-day people. So for 25 home games, at £50 (?) a game woudl be £1.2m.

 

If we say that the footbalnlers and the management total 35 bodies, then that leaves about 270 other full-time staff to run the business. Lets say they have the average UK wage of £20k per year. That would cost ~ £5.4m to finance.

 

This leaves the 35 "football" employees to share the rest. This means 44.5 - 1.2 - 5.4 = £37.8m

 

Looks like just over £1m per year for each of them. Of course there will be extremes, at both ends, but on average the figure looks like £1m to me.

 

++++++++++

 

Deloittes who look in to these things, say that football clubs should run themsleves with the target of payroll costs (in total, so the £50.2m not the £44.5m) ideally be no more than 50% of income. Up to 2003 the club extolled the fact that they were one of only two sides who met this criterion. Then they just lost the plot. The graph below shows the rise of the wages:income ratio, as well as the general rise in wages.

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/payrol5.gif

 

Now whichever way we try and cut it up, and try and work individual player amounts, the trend is steeply upwards.

 

The issue is two-fold. The wages are rising, so 76% up in 4 years. This is ridiculous. The other issue is that our income has only gone up 17% in the same time.

 

Someone at the club has just not been in control of things. High wages on falling income is why the club has been losing over £1m per month for the last reported 18 months. The hope has to be that the new CEO will bring in sound financial knowledge that has clearly been missing for the last few years. Luckily the Sky money leaps next year. The sad thing is that that money has aleady been spent. The extra income will only take us to the point we should be at. For other clubs the money will be a bonus, for us is it is a life-raft.

 

Agenda again. You just can't stop and it spoils almost every post you make.

[Parky]

I think he's being too polite....More to the point FS is incompetant as a chairman. I don't want to list his failings yet again, as you well know they are legion.

[madras]

has the club actually been losing £1mill per month ?

,ie to lose £12mill in one year doesn't necessarily mean you've lost £1mill per month

[koven]

Did you decide to stop reading there? lol

 

If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average.  That was an oversimplification.  Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays?

 

We have something like 800 employees not 28.  Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop.

 

And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week?  Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet.  All players get overpaid in the premier league.

 

Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing.  Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us.  Now who overpays?

 

I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it.  The figures don't bear that out.

 

Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers.

 

But not so good with words?

 

From the 2005 accounts -

The club have roughly 300 full time employees, and roughly 1000 part-time staff.

The wages and salaries for all of those comes to £44.5m. On top of that the club paid £5.2m in Social security costs, and then a further £0.4k in other pension costs. This came to the total for that year of £50.2m. The total for 2006 was £56.6m but I don't have the breakdown at hand. (Anyone any idea wher I've put it  :-[ )

 

Lets play numbers ...

 

The 1000 part-time wiill be match-day people. So for 25 home games, at £50 (?) a game woudl be £1.2m.

 

If we say that the footbalnlers and the management total 35 bodies, then that leaves about 270 other full-time staff to run the business. Lets say they have the average UK wage of £20k per year. That would cost ~ £5.4m to finance.

 

This leaves the 35 "football" employees to share the rest. This means 44.5 - 1.2 - 5.4 = £37.8m

 

Looks like just over £1m per year for each of them. Of course there will be extremes, at both ends, but on average the figure looks like £1m to me.

 

++++++++++

 

So about £20k per week?  About what I said then.  Plus like it or not Owen and Dyer do skew the figures for the average player at the club.

 

Deloittes who look in to these things, say that football clubs should run themsleves with the target of payroll costs (in total, so the £50.2m not the £44.5m) ideally be no more than 50% of income. Up to 2003 the club extolled the fact that they were one of only two sides who met this criterion. Then they just lost the plot. The graph below shows the rise of the wages:income ratio, as well as the general rise in wages.

 

So almost every club doesn't meet the criteria?  I haven't seen any premiership clubs go bust recently either?  I understand what your saying but in football especially it's harder to stick to the ideal model.  When you consider the cost of players, etc.

 

Now whichever way we try and cut it up, and try and work individual player amounts, the trend is steeply upwards.

 

The issue is two-fold. The wages are rising, so 76% up in 4 years. This is ridiculous. The other issue is that our income has only gone up 17% in the same time.

 

Someone at the club has just not been in control of things. High wages on falling income is why the club has been losing over £1m per month for the last reported 18 months. The hope has to be that the new CEO will bring in sound financial knowledge that has clearly been missing for the last few years. Luckily the Sky money leaps next year. The sad thing is that that money has aleady been spent. The extra income will only take us to the point we should be at. For other clubs the money will be a bonus, for us is it is a life-raft.

 

Wages for all clubs rose in those 4 years I would guess.  Nevertheless those wage costs were meant to create success for the club, which unfortunately hasn't happened.  I trust the board of NUFC to keep the club in good financial help whilst providing as much resources as they can to the team.

[Parky]

Did you decide to stop reading there? lol

 

If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average.  That was an oversimplification.  Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays?

 

We have something like 800 employees not 28.  Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop.

 

And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week?  Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet.  All players get overpaid in the premier league.

 

Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing.  Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us.  Now who overpays?

 

I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it.  The figures don't bear that out.

 

Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers.

 

But not so good with words?

 

From the 2005 accounts -

The club have roughly 300 full time employees, and roughly 1000 part-time staff.

The wages and salaries for all of those comes to £44.5m. On top of that the club paid £5.2m in Social security costs, and then a further £0.4k in other pension costs. This came to the total for that year of £50.2m. The total for 2006 was £56.6m but I don't have the breakdown at hand. (Anyone any idea wher I've put it  :-[ )

 

Lets play numbers ...

 

The 1000 part-time wiill be match-day people. So for 25 home games, at £50 (?) a game woudl be £1.2m.

 

If we say that the footbalnlers and the management total 35 bodies, then that leaves about 270 other full-time staff to run the business. Lets say they have the average UK wage of £20k per year. That would cost ~ £5.4m to finance.

 

This leaves the 35 "football" employees to share the rest. This means 44.5 - 1.2 - 5.4 = £37.8m

 

Looks like just over £1m per year for each of them. Of course there will be extremes, at both ends, but on average the figure looks like £1m to me.

 

++++++++++

 

So about £20k per week?  About what I said then.  Plus like it or not Owen and Dyer do skew the figures for the average player at the club.

 

Deloittes who look in to these things, say that football clubs should run themsleves with the target of payroll costs (in total, so the £50.2m not the £44.5m) ideally be no more than 50% of income. Up to 2003 the club extolled the fact that they were one of only two sides who met this criterion. Then they just lost the plot. The graph below shows the rise of the wages:income ratio, as well as the general rise in wages.

 

So almost every club doesn't meet the criteria?  I haven't seen any premiership clubs go bust recently either?  I understand what your saying but in football especially it's harder to stick to the ideal model.  When you consider the cost of players, etc.

 

Now whichever way we try and cut it up, and try and work individual player amounts, the trend is steeply upwards.

 

The issue is two-fold. The wages are rising, so 76% up in 4 years. This is ridiculous. The other issue is that our income has only gone up 17% in the same time.

 

Someone at the club has just not been in control of things. High wages on falling income is why the club has been losing over £1m per month for the last reported 18 months. The hope has to be that the new CEO will bring in sound financial knowledge that has clearly been missing for the last few years. Luckily the Sky money leaps next year. The sad thing is that that money has aleady been spent. The extra income will only take us to the point we should be at. For other clubs the money will be a bonus, for us is it is a life-raft.

 

Wages for all clubs rose in those 4 years I would guess.  Nevertheless those wage costs were meant to create success for the club, which unfortunately hasn't happened.  I trust the board of NUFC to keep the club in good financial help whilst providing as much resources as they can to the team.

 

 

Seriously Koven are you working for FS?

 

 

 

[Howaythelads]

Did you decide to stop reading there? lol

 

If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average.  That was an oversimplification.  Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays?

 

We have something like 800 employees not 28.  Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop.

 

And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week?  Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet.  All players get overpaid in the premier league.

 

Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing.  Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us.  Now who overpays?

 

I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it.  The figures don't bear that out.

 

Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers.

 

But not so good with words?

 

From the 2005 accounts -

The club have roughly 300 full time employees, and roughly 1000 part-time staff.

The wages and salaries for all of those comes to £44.5m. On top of that the club paid £5.2m in Social security costs, and then a further £0.4k in other pension costs. This came to the total for that year of £50.2m. The total for 2006 was £56.6m but I don't have the breakdown at hand. (Anyone any idea wher I've put it  :-[ )

 

Lets play numbers ...

 

The 1000 part-time wiill be match-day people. So for 25 home games, at £50 (?) a game woudl be £1.2m.

 

If we say that the footbalnlers and the management total 35 bodies, then that leaves about 270 other full-time staff to run the business. Lets say they have the average UK wage of £20k per year. That would cost ~ £5.4m to finance.

 

This leaves the 35 "football" employees to share the rest. This means 44.5 - 1.2 - 5.4 = £37.8m

 

Looks like just over £1m per year for each of them. Of course there will be extremes, at both ends, but on average the figure looks like £1m to me.

 

++++++++++

 

So about £20k per week?  About what I said then.  Plus like it or not Owen and Dyer do skew the figures for the average player at the club.

 

Deloittes who look in to these things, say that football clubs should run themsleves with the target of payroll costs (in total, so the £50.2m not the £44.5m) ideally be no more than 50% of income. Up to 2003 the club extolled the fact that they were one of only two sides who met this criterion. Then they just lost the plot. The graph below shows the rise of the wages:income ratio, as well as the general rise in wages.

 

So almost every club doesn't meet the criteria?  I haven't seen any premiership clubs go bust recently either?  I understand what your saying but in football especially it's harder to stick to the ideal model.  When you consider the cost of players, etc.

 

Now whichever way we try and cut it up, and try and work individual player amounts, the trend is steeply upwards.

 

The issue is two-fold. The wages are rising, so 76% up in 4 years. This is ridiculous. The other issue is that our income has only gone up 17% in the same time.

 

Someone at the club has just not been in control of things. High wages on falling income is why the club has been losing over £1m per month for the last reported 18 months. The hope has to be that the new CEO will bring in sound financial knowledge that has clearly been missing for the last few years. Luckily the Sky money leaps next year. The sad thing is that that money has aleady been spent. The extra income will only take us to the point we should be at. For other clubs the money will be a bonus, for us is it is a life-raft.

 

Wages for all clubs rose in those 4 years I would guess.  Nevertheless those wage costs were meant to create success for the club, which unfortunately hasn't happened.  I trust the board of NUFC to keep the club in good financial help whilst providing as much resources as they can to the team.

 

 

Seriously Koven are you working for FS?

 

 

 

 

Parky,

 

Seriously, do you think everyone who doesn't slag them and realises that it's not all bad is working for the club?

[Parky]

Did you decide to stop reading there? lol

 

If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average.  That was an oversimplification.  Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays?

 

We have something like 800 employees not 28.  Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop.

 

And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week?  Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet.  All players get overpaid in the premier league.

 

Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing.  Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us.  Now who overpays?

 

I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it.  The figures don't bear that out.

 

Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers.

 

But not so good with words?

 

From the 2005 accounts -

The club have roughly 300 full time employees, and roughly 1000 part-time staff.

The wages and salaries for all of those comes to £44.5m. On top of that the club paid £5.2m in Social security costs, and then a further £0.4k in other pension costs. This came to the total for that year of £50.2m. The total for 2006 was £56.6m but I don't have the breakdown at hand. (Anyone any idea wher I've put it  :-[ )

 

Lets play numbers ...

 

The 1000 part-time wiill be match-day people. So for 25 home games, at £50 (?) a game woudl be £1.2m.

 

If we say that the footbalnlers and the management total 35 bodies, then that leaves about 270 other full-time staff to run the business. Lets say they have the average UK wage of £20k per year. That would cost ~ £5.4m to finance.

 

This leaves the 35 "football" employees to share the rest. This means 44.5 - 1.2 - 5.4 = £37.8m

 

Looks like just over £1m per year for each of them. Of course there will be extremes, at both ends, but on average the figure looks like £1m to me.

 

++++++++++

 

So about £20k per week?  About what I said then.  Plus like it or not Owen and Dyer do skew the figures for the average player at the club.

 

Deloittes who look in to these things, say that football clubs should run themsleves with the target of payroll costs (in total, so the £50.2m not the £44.5m) ideally be no more than 50% of income. Up to 2003 the club extolled the fact that they were one of only two sides who met this criterion. Then they just lost the plot. The graph below shows the rise of the wages:income ratio, as well as the general rise in wages.

 

So almost every club doesn't meet the criteria?  I haven't seen any premiership clubs go bust recently either?  I understand what your saying but in football especially it's harder to stick to the ideal model.  When you consider the cost of players, etc.

 

Now whichever way we try and cut it up, and try and work individual player amounts, the trend is steeply upwards.

 

The issue is two-fold. The wages are rising, so 76% up in 4 years. This is ridiculous. The other issue is that our income has only gone up 17% in the same time.

 

Someone at the club has just not been in control of things. High wages on falling income is why the club has been losing over £1m per month for the last reported 18 months. The hope has to be that the new CEO will bring in sound financial knowledge that has clearly been missing for the last few years. Luckily the Sky money leaps next year. The sad thing is that that money has aleady been spent. The extra income will only take us to the point we should be at. For other clubs the money will be a bonus, for us is it is a life-raft.

 

Wages for all clubs rose in those 4 years I would guess.  Nevertheless those wage costs were meant to create success for the club, which unfortunately hasn't happened.  I trust the board of NUFC to keep the club in good financial help whilst providing as much resources as they can to the team.

 

 

Seriously Koven are you working for FS?

 

 

 

 

Parky,

 

Seriously, do you think everyone who doesn't slag them and realises that it's not all bad is working for the club?

 

No. But I've got my eye on Koven. blueyes.gif

[Howaythelads]

Did you decide to stop reading there? lol

 

If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average.  That was an oversimplification.  Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays?

 

We have something like 800 employees not 28.  Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop.

 

And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week?  Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet.  All players get overpaid in the premier league.

 

Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing.  Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us.  Now who overpays?

 

I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it.  The figures don't bear that out.

 

Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers.

 

But not so good with words?

 

From the 2005 accounts -

The club have roughly 300 full time employees, and roughly 1000 part-time staff.

The wages and salaries for all of those comes to £44.5m. On top of that the club paid £5.2m in Social security costs, and then a further £0.4k in other pension costs. This came to the total for that year of £50.2m. The total for 2006 was £56.6m but I don't have the breakdown at hand. (Anyone any idea wher I've put it  :-[ )

 

Lets play numbers ...

 

The 1000 part-time wiill be match-day people. So for 25 home games, at £50 (?) a game woudl be £1.2m.

 

If we say that the footbalnlers and the management total 35 bodies, then that leaves about 270 other full-time staff to run the business. Lets say they have the average UK wage of £20k per year. That would cost ~ £5.4m to finance.

 

This leaves the 35 "football" employees to share the rest. This means 44.5 - 1.2 - 5.4 = £37.8m

 

Looks like just over £1m per year for each of them. Of course there will be extremes, at both ends, but on average the figure looks like £1m to me.

 

++++++++++

 

So about £20k per week?  About what I said then.  Plus like it or not Owen and Dyer do skew the figures for the average player at the club.

 

Deloittes who look in to these things, say that football clubs should run themsleves with the target of payroll costs (in total, so the £50.2m not the £44.5m) ideally be no more than 50% of income. Up to 2003 the club extolled the fact that they were one of only two sides who met this criterion. Then they just lost the plot. The graph below shows the rise of the wages:income ratio, as well as the general rise in wages.

 

So almost every club doesn't meet the criteria?  I haven't seen any premiership clubs go bust recently either?  I understand what your saying but in football especially it's harder to stick to the ideal model.  When you consider the cost of players, etc.

 

Now whichever way we try and cut it up, and try and work individual player amounts, the trend is steeply upwards.

 

The issue is two-fold. The wages are rising, so 76% up in 4 years. This is ridiculous. The other issue is that our income has only gone up 17% in the same time.

 

Someone at the club has just not been in control of things. High wages on falling income is why the club has been losing over £1m per month for the last reported 18 months. The hope has to be that the new CEO will bring in sound financial knowledge that has clearly been missing for the last few years. Luckily the Sky money leaps next year. The sad thing is that that money has aleady been spent. The extra income will only take us to the point we should be at. For other clubs the money will be a bonus, for us is it is a life-raft.

 

Wages for all clubs rose in those 4 years I would guess.  Nevertheless those wage costs were meant to create success for the club, which unfortunately hasn't happened.  I trust the board of NUFC to keep the club in good financial help whilst providing as much resources as they can to the team.

 

Exactly. However, that's a football reason and it happened as an attempt was made to rid the club of the reported bad influence of certain players who had to be replaced otherwise we'd be looking at relegation and even less revenue. It's been discussed before but people don't understand it. The poor appoointment of Souness is what can be seen in that chart and that is all.