Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yorkshire  Canary

How much money has this club got to spend

Recommended Posts

In the context of disappointing transfer activity to date, i think this is a very important question as it goes to the heart of what this club can afford to spend and in turn how attractive or otherwise we may be.

It has been stated for some time that the club is free of debt so none of our income is being wasted on interest /loan repayments.

The TV money is supposed to be on or around £120m. add to that season and ticket sales of about £8 at least and sponsorship and the club has income well in excess of £130m this season. We are known for not being the biggest wage payers but lets say we have a total wage bill of £70m [ and i think it would be less than that ] for all staff at the club then there is about £60m unaccounted for. Other bills would only make a minor dent in this. This reasonably means that we could spend at least £30 to £35m on transfers and still make a tidy profit. this rather than rich owners expains why other seemingly unfashionable clubs are spending significant amounts of money. Only a fool spends money for the sake of it but we have all known that we need another forward and CB and if they cannot be achieved within the above budget then there is something significantly wrong. We have an excellent manager who gets the best out of players but despite his new contract he needs to be convinced that the club support his ambition of staying in the EPL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]In the context of disappointing transfer activity to date, i think this is a very important question as it goes to the heart of what this club can afford to spend and in turn how attractive or otherwise we may be.

It has been stated for some time that the club is free of debt so none of our income is being wasted on interest /loan repayments.

The TV money is supposed to be on or around £120m. add to that season and ticket sales of about £8 at least and sponsorship and the club has income well in excess of £130m this season. We are known for not being the biggest wage payers but lets say we have a total wage bill of £70m [ and i think it would be less than that ] for all staff at the club then there is about £60m unaccounted for. Other bills would only make a minor dent in this. This reasonably means that we could spend at least £30 to £35m on transfers and still make a tidy profit. this rather than rich owners expains why other seemingly unfashionable clubs are spending significant amounts of money. Only a fool spends money for the sake of it but we have all known that we need another forward and CB and if they cannot be achieved within the above budget then there is something significantly wrong. We have an excellent manager who gets the best out of players but despite his new contract he needs to be convinced that the club support his ambition of staying in the EPL[/quote]The figure will almost certainly be between £95m and £100m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sadly, the truth is not a great deal. The accounts for the year end of 30th June 2014, show we made a £6m profit and we got relegated. I can imagine we made a loss last season even with the parachute payment. Whilst we all know that a striker and a defender is probably pivotal on our league status next year, McNally has always had a businessmen outlook on the club and has done wonders for us since arriving. With this in mind, I expect us to sign someone but the likes of Charlie Austin for £15m is way out of our budget (in my opinion). Destro seems to be off elsewhere which makes me wonder, maybe we can''t compete with the big signings but when we find a striker we''re interested in, it''s a shame we can''t wrap it up with the personal contract.I''d say we''d be lucky to see two signings for a total of £10m this season, without offloading anybody. Sell then buy. But then we come across the common problem of who will pay RVW or Hooper''s reported wages when neither have done it at this level. It''s unlikely they''ll take a massive drop in wages, unfortunate but true. So we have the choice of making smaller signings, running down unwanted contracts and take a loss, hoping and praying we stay in the Premier League for the next year or two. Then really make a go of it, like Southampton and Swansea. If it goes the way I mentioned, our players such as Redmond will be in demand along with Alex Neil. The year in the Championship must have hit us financially but I''m sure they have a plan... For now lets thank the gods we got promoted or else we''d be debating what League One striker we can afford.Greatbatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given next year''s TV deal is is imperative we stay in the PL this season. The weaknesses in our squad are well-documented and we haven''t exactly pushed the boat out in terms of transfers. If the board repeat the mistake of buying too late in January (Ashton) and we end up relegated serious questions are going to have to be asked about the club''s ambition and financial management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]In the context of disappointing transfer activity to date, i think this is a very important question as it goes to the heart of what this club can afford to spend and in turn how attractive or otherwise we may be.

It has been stated for some time that the club is free of debt so none of our income is being wasted on interest /loan repayments.

The TV money is supposed to be on or around £120m. add to that season and ticket sales of about £8 at least and sponsorship and the club has income well in excess of £130m this season. We are known for not being the biggest wage payers but lets say we have a total wage bill of £70m [ and i think it would be less than that ] for all staff at the club then there is about £60m unaccounted for. Other bills would only make a minor dent in this. This reasonably means that we could spend at least £30 to £35m on transfers and still make a tidy profit. this rather than rich owners expains why other seemingly unfashionable clubs are spending significant amounts of money. Only a fool spends money for the sake of it but we have all known that we need another forward and CB and if they cannot be achieved within the above budget then there is something significantly wrong. We have an excellent manager who gets the best out of players but despite his new contract he needs to be convinced that the club support his ambition of staying in the EPL[/quote]The figure will almost certainly be between £95m and £100m. [/quote]

I''m with purple on this - the new TV deal doesn''t come into play until next season, so isn''t worth the £130million YC is suggesting at the moment. It''s still on more or less the same as the last time we were in the Prem I believe.

Plus, what people always seem to forget to factor in is that this money is NOT up-front. Sure, I can hear some people saying that we should risk more as if it comes off we''ll get that money anyway.

The issue with that is that you do not want to get lumbered with players you can''t get rid of upon relegation and be run to the ground paying their wages. There are plenty of examples of that happening.

In truth, only the folk at the club will know how much we have. You can''t really go on last season either - we sold Fer and Snodgrass for £15-20million for starters.

When it comes down to signing players, the issue will be up front costs and wages I should imagine. As said elsewhere I suspect that this is why we are reported to be offering £4-5million for players (Brady) when the reality is we are offering more but this is the up front fee being offered with the rest being in installments and ad ons etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must admit i did not realise that the £120m did not come into force until season 2016/17. If we are looking at the current levels QPR finished bottom last season and got £62m and i think Chelsea being top got £99. So the QPR figure is the safest to go on then which certainly gives a fresh view on cash availability this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ruthers1"]Well put YC. Best post on this message board all Summer.[/quote]And that has to be the funniest post on this message board all Summer since the OP admitted he got it all wrong ruth. [;)][:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="AmericanNorwichFan"]Complete ballpark guess here: somewhere between 25-30 million[/quote]This won''t be far off the mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Yorkshire I see you spotted your mistake but still not on the money so to speak. Even when the new deal kicks in it will be a significant increase but even then the bottom team is expected to receive in the area of £99m rather than £120m.

This often quoted figure of a £120m is a figure the media use at playoff time so they can build it up and call it the "richest game in football". This figure is based on going up and being relegated in the first season then receiving parachute payments. So the current minimum a team will receive is about £62m for finishing bottom plus a few mil if on TV more than ten times and another 64m in parachute payments over the next three seasons.

We will not receive 120m this season or next, unless we win the league!

Check this article it shows how the money is made up and is quite interesting. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-prize-money-qpr-5812599

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s also not just about a transfer budget. We will have a wage structure and a maximum amount we will pay as income. This will rule out many players regardless of transfer fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="AmericanNorwichFan"]Complete ballpark guess here: somewhere between 25-30 million[/quote]This won''t be far off the mark[/quote]My fag-packet estimate for this summer has always been around £20m for transfers, perhaps going towards £25m. But, as bor has pointed out, wages represent as much a limiting factor for us. There are players out there whose fee we could afford, but not their wage demands. I suspect Virgil van Dijk might fit into that category, assuming other - bigger - clubs are also in the market for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...