Fair play to Aston Villa

[king canary 7,580]

4 minutes ago, Badger said:

All transfers are risks - I'm not sure how "calculated" they can be as so much uncertainty surrounds their subsequent performance.

This is particularly the case with promoted clubs, who are normally unable to obtain established top level players unless they loan them - an as we have seen even this does not always work. So, promoted clubs are buying at the riskier end of the scale and hoping that players "step up." This frequently fails:

e.g. Wesley Aston Villa from Club Brugge - £22.5 million

e.g. Ollie McBurnie - £17.5 million - 36 appearances, 6 goals (353 minutes per goal, compared to Drmic's 298 minutes per goal!); Callum Robertson - £10 million but at 25 years old loaned out again

These clubs stayed up - but didn't stay up because they bought these players - the connection people draw is too simplistic.

We could have bought all three for £50 million, but I suspect that we' still have been in the Championship next year - or do you think that they would have made the difference?

In addition, I very much doubt that they would have accepted our relegation wage cuts, so the pay structure would have been messed up for the future years. In short, I think that we would still have been relegated, but our chances of future promotion greatly weakened.

Well firstly these examples are all over the place- all three of these players are strikers or play as wide forwards. We wouldn't have spent £50m on three players for those roles as we didn't really need them.

The McBurnie example is interesting though- as I don't think it backs up your final sentence. Even if we'd gone down, we'd be going into next season with a player who'd scored 22 Championship goals the season before which I don't think weakens anyone's chance of promotion. 

But you do seem to miss my larger point- how can we ever hope to compete if a transfer like any of the three above isn't just a potential waste of money but is in fact a threat to the clubs very future?

[Badger 2,405]

14 minutes ago, king canary said:

But you do seem to miss my larger point- how can we ever hope to compete if a transfer like any of the three above isn't just a potential waste of money but is in fact a threat to the clubs very future?

By building a firm financial basis as Sheffield Utd have done. They went up with £20 million less debt than us as a result of player sales (David Brooks to Bournemouth - bet he's gutted!). As a Sheffield United board member commented after his sale:

" ...player trading represents a key element of our strategy to be a self-sustaining club."

I hope that we continue to follow their model of financial probity, so that in the future we will be able to spend more on promotion. Unfortunately, we have a recent history of "chasing the dream" and taking a financial gamble which has placed us in a weaker position.

Thank goodness we resisted the temptation to make the same mistake.

[king canary 7,580]

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

By building a firm financial basis as Sheffield Utd have done. They went up with £20 million less debt than us as a result of player sales (David Brooks to Bournemouth - bet he's gutted!). As a Sheffield United board member commented after his sale:

" ...player trading represents a key element of our strategy to be a self-sustaining club."

I hope that we continue to follow their model of financial probity, so that in the future we will be able to spend more on promotion. Unfortunately, we have a recent history of "chasing the dream" and taking a financial gamble which has placed us in a weaker position.

Thank goodness we resisted the temptation to make the same mistake.

You talk of £20m in debt but I think it is a bit disingenuous- this was a £20m overdraft facility, mainly to cover promotion bonuses in the short term and I'd imagine has already been dealt with.

Sheffied United would also have had to pay promotion bonuses- maybe the fact they didn't need a £20m overdraft facility suggests that the owner was able to cover these?

 

[Ren 75]

14 hours ago, sgncfc said:

Can some of those on this thread bemoaning the lack of "investment" please enlighten me as to where the money would have come from? Given that if you've seen the accounts we made a loss of £33m for the y/e May 2019. Given that everyone knows our owners don't have the sort of money where they can bung £100m to the club as a loan.

I guess we could have sold our ground to someone for £30m like Villa did. 

Today we played a team who have £50m+ players in every position and on the extended subs bench. Our record signing is, what,£8.5m? Villa had 8 players in their team today who cost more than that.

I know it's been disappointing but really, get a grip.

Yet all the media go on about is how we are such a well run club, yet look at those debts from only a few years ago!  

[Badger 2,405]

8 minutes ago, king canary said:

You talk of £20m in debt but I think it is a bit disingenuous- this was a £20m overdraft facility, mainly to cover promotion bonuses in the short term and I'd imagine has already been dealt with.

Sheffied United would also have had to pay promotion bonuses- maybe the fact they didn't need a £20m overdraft facility suggests that the owner was able to cover these?

Disingenuous how? An overdraft isn't debt?

Yes and as you say, Sheffield Utd had the same promotion costs to pay - when they did so, it left them £3 million in debt - presumably also an overdraft.

No the owner did not cover these costs - you keep clinging to this delusion. The reason they were able to spend more is precisely because they have been more sensible in their financial management in recent years. They could spend more on promotion than we could because they had not taken calculated gambles in recent years. As their board made plain - they were a self-sustaining club!

They spent more after promotion because they were in a stronger position financially despite a lower revenue base than us. This is because they had not spent as heavily as us in the past.

I know that it does not fit the model in your mind - but it is a fact. Our best chance of becoming established in the premier league is by following a financially sustainable model. In fact, they have done, without the publicity, what Webber is aiming to do!

* Since the start of the EPL season Prince Abdullah, reportedly worth 17 billion, has won his court case and taken over the club. Sheff Utd now have a billionaire owner, although whether this turns about to improve matters remains to be seen - there has been a lot of claim and counter claim over the issue. I'm sure that many on the Pink Un can only imagine this as a good thing and will expect Sheff Utd to move from strength to strength. 

[king canary 7,580]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Disingenuous how? An overdraft isn't debt?

Yes and as you say, Sheffield Utd had the same promotion costs to pay - when they did so, it left them £3 million in debt - presumably also an overdraft.

No the owner did not cover these costs - you keep clinging to this delusion. The reason they were able to spend more is precisely because they have been more sensible in their financial management in recent years. They could spend more on promotion than we could because they had not taken calculated gambles in recent years. As their board made plain - they were a self-sustaining club!

They spent more after promotion because they were in a stronger position financially despite a lower revenue base than us. This is because they had not spent as heavily as us in the past.

I know that it does not fit the model in your mind - but it is a fact. Our best chance of becoming established in the premier league is by following a financially sustainable model. In fact, they have done, without the publicity, what Webber is aiming to do!

* Since the start of the EPL season Prince Abdullah, reportedly worth 17 billion, has won his court case and taken over the club. Sheff Utd now have a billionaire owner, although whether this turns about to improve matters remains to be seen - there has been a lot of claim and counter claim over the issue. I'm sure that many on the Pink Un can only imagine this as a good thing and will expect Sheff Utd to move from strength to strength. 

Ok so how is the £40m they spent this summer part of the sustainable model for them but not viable for us?

[Badger 2,405]

25 minutes ago, Ren said:

Yet all the media go on about is how we are such a well run club, yet look at those debts from only a few years ago!  

Just now, king canary said:

Ok so how is the £40m they spent this summer part of the sustainable model for them but not viable for us?

Because they didn't start with as much debt in the first place.

Because they had in recent years been more sensible (having learned from bitter experience) they started from a better financial position. For example in 17-18 their wage bill was £19 million and ours was £42 million (they were 10th, we were 14th). Last year, their expenses, including promotion costs, were 10 million less than ours. (I can provide the links if you want them.)

[king canary 7,580]

9 minutes ago, Badger said:

Because they didn't start with as much debt in the first place.

Because they had in recent years been more sensible (having learned from bitter experience) they started from a better financial position. For example in 17-18 their wage bill was £19 million and ours was £42 million (they were 10th, we were 14th). Last year, their expenses, including promotion costs, were 10 million less than ours. (I can provide the links if you want them.)

It still doesn't make sense to me.

Here are a few quotes from an Athletic article on their finances from April this year (just after the accounts were published).

'United's sole profitable year in the past decade was a reeuslt of a £30m+ loan being written off in 13-14.'

'Turnover was up in 17-18 to £21 but wages soared to £19.6m.'

'The previous three years had bought combined losses of £17.6m'

'Former owner McCabe estimates his investment in the club to stand around £100m.'

'Wages shot up to £41.2m, understood to be largely a result of sizable promotion bonuses'

Doesn't sound like sensible, self sustaining model to me?

Edit- link here but you need a subscription obviously... https://theathletic.co.uk/1721092/2020/04/07/sheffield-united-accounts/

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by king canary

[king canary 7,580]

13 minutes ago, Badger said:

Because they didn't start with as much debt in the first place.

Because they had in recent years been more sensible (having learned from bitter experience) they started from a better financial position. For example in 17-18 their wage bill was £19 million and ours was £42 million (they were 10th, we were 14th). Last year, their expenses, including promotion costs, were 10 million less than ours. (I can provide the links if you want them.)

Also, your agenda is showing here.

Yes they had a signicantly lower wage bill that season but that wage bill was vs a turnover of £21m (so about 90% wage to turnover) while our £42m wage budget was against a turnover of £62m. Which of those is the healthier position?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

3 hours ago, king canary said:

You're a smart guy and you know calculated risk isn't an oxymoron so lets start there.

People take calculated risks all the time. You get a mortgage, you're risking that you'll be earning enough money to keep paying it off over a long period. That is a calculated risk

Football clubs take these all the time too. The issue is the apparent threshold for what becomes to risky for NCFC is so much lower than with the 19 other clubs in this league (and likely a few in the league below too). 

According to transfermark, 50 players were signed by Premier League clubs for north of £10m. Yet apparently for us making a signing like that would unfathomable and threaten the long term future of the club. 

I don't think any but the most moronic of posters are calling for us to have done what Villa did. But at some point, if we ever want to really compete at this level we have to be in a position to take some risks with spending.

At last we agree on something!😜

Moving on, you have made my point for me. Like it or not, Norwich City's finances/spending in the Premier League have to be limited by two interlinked factors. That spending cannot exceed to any great extent known income, and it has to be based on the assumption we will be back in the Championship the next season, with that division's known income.

In effect that means the club cannot take any kind of risk which I why I say for us 'calculated risk' is an oxymoron, because by definition it is based on gambling - not calculating but gambling - that we will stay up. What you call an apparent threshold is a real threshold.

Other clubs can - or feel they can - risk spending more than their income and risk being relegated because are gambling that they won't go down and even if they do somehow their owner's multi-millions or billions will somehow fill the gap.

[king canary 7,580]

18 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

At last we agree on something!😜

Moving on, you have made my point for me. Like it or not, Norwich City's finances/spending in the Premier League have to be limited by two interlinked factors. That spending cannot exceed to any great extent known income, and it has to be based on the assumption we will be back in the Championship the next season, with that division's known income.

In effect that means the club cannot take any kind of risk which I why I say for us 'calculated risk' is an oxymoron, because by definition it is based on gambling - not calculating but gambling - that we will stay up. What you call an apparent threshold is a real threshold.

Other clubs can - or feel they can - risk spending more than their income and risk being relegated because are gambling that they won't go down and even if they do somehow their owner's multi-millions or billions will somehow fill the gap.

Thing is Purple I think we agree on quite a bit really.

I acknowledge the reality of our situation and don't want us doing anything to endanger the future of the club. We just differ in a couple of key areas...

1) I don't think spending £20-30m this summer would have been a long danger to the club.

2) That if spending those sums is a long term danger to the club then I think our owners need to be more proactive about changing that. 

[Badger 2,405]

36 minutes ago, king canary said:

I can't see the Athletic link.

It still doesn't make sense to me.

Here are a few quotes from an Athletic article on their finances from April this year (just after the accounts were published).

'United's sole profitable year in the past decade was a reeuslt of a £30m+ loan being written off in 13-14.'

I know that they had a loan written off - I thought that it was £35 million. Not sure by whom.

'Turnover was up in 17-18 to £21 but wages soared to £19.6m.'

Our wages that year were £42 million - the wages "soared" to a level that was less than half of ours.

'The previous three years had bought combined losses of £17.6m'

'Former owner McCabe estimates his investment in the club to stand around £100m.'

McCabe has been at Sheffield Utd for ages - a bit like Delia at Norwich. During this time, he has done what many fan owners have done and spent money "chasing the dream" and like so often it resulted in wasted money, no promotion and relegation to League One. He had incredibly ambitious plans to turn Sheffield Utd into "a global force" - the £100 million investment is easily explained as "money *placed upon* the wall" in his earlier years there.

'Wages shot up to £41.2m, understood to be largely a result of sizable promotion bonuses'

Ours was £51.2 million - substantially higher even after all the much celebrated cuts.

Doesn't sound like sensible, self sustaining model to me?

The self-sustaining part is more recent - the lessons learnt after previous excess. However, you raise points that I need to check, but I've got to out now. I'll get back to you later.

Edit- link here but you need a subscription obviously... https://theathletic.co.uk/1721092/2020/04/07/sheffield-united-accounts/

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

13 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

1) Yes. If posters know of financial institutions out there who lend money and never want it repaid could they please send me a personal message.

2)  The more sophisticated version of this is the oxymoronic 'calclated risk' mantra. In this case 'calculated' means 'unjustifiably hopeful'. And with the owners we have cannot take a risk because if it  goes wrong we will actually be in real financial trouble with no obvious or pleasant way out, as opposed to the solvable probems we've had so far the Smith and Jones era.

We could never have remotely been able to justify taking the kind of risk Aston Villa took, but then not even Aston Villa, with the owners they have, could possibly justify that risk. They have been very, very lucky.

 

I have a bigger issue with the ownership in terms of the pathetic "little Norwich" attitude that permeates the club and in my view played a major part in this relegation because neither Webber or Farke or indeed the players were under any kind of pressure to actually stay in the premier league. That for me permeated everything we did and was a contributing factor to the whimper with which we went out of the league as well as some of Farke's dubious selections and tactics at times towards the end of the season.

However, leaving that aside, in my view we certainly could have taken a "calculated risk" and invested in an extra centre back or holding midfielder this season (plus maybe a winger as well) which may have made all the difference during our horrendous spell of injuries. Even had the players brought in been on a par with rather than better than Tettey and Zimbo, prior to the lockdown, when we were actually able to play Tettey as a holding midfileder in front of 2 centre backs were were averaging over a point a game and would have been right in the mix for safety had we been able to sustain that throughout the season. 

We knew/know that going into this season we had 4 or 5 highly saleable assets who could be sold in the event of relegation. just once, I'd like to see us give it a bit of a go and if the upshot of failure is having to sell players on relegation then so be it. we are going to sell several of them anyway now and we haven't even given it a go. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

16 hours ago, Badger said:

Below is a list of clubs that have been relegated from the EPL and have not yet been re-promoted. Obviously a long-term member of this list has finally got promotion this year (Leeds). Many of these clubs have been established top league clubs for many years, have bigger grounds and crowds and have won more.

One things that a lot of these larger clubs have in common, particularly those with longer Championship stays is that they have had financial problems as a consequence of over-spending either trying to get to the EPL or to stay there. Except for the very richest owners (and we are talking billionaires rather than a few hundred million) - e.g. Man City, the extra spending trying to but PL status does not work over the long term. It may last for a few years, but at some stage it goes wrong and then the big spenders find it harder to manage the debt that they have accrued and get re-promoted.

The best chance of becoming established in the Premier League is by well-managed organic growth. (Unless you happen to know of a multi-billionaire going spare). Those that take a "calculated gamble" (i.e. spend more than they can afford) will come down when they stop rolling 6s!

Club	Club	Re promoted
1997-98	Barnsley	N
2010-11	Birmingham City	N
2011-12	Blackburn Rovers	N
2010-11	Blackpool	N
2011-12	Bolton Wanderers	N
2006-07	Charlton Athletic	N
2000-01	Coventry City	N
2007-08	Derby County	N
2018-19	Huddersfield Town	N
2016-17	Hull City	N
1994-95	Ipswich Town	N
2016-17	Middlesbrough	N
1998-99	Nottingham Forest	N
1993-94	Oldham Athletic	N
2009-10	Portsmouth	N
2014-15	QPR	N
2012-13	Reading	N
1999-00	Sheffield Wednesday	N
2017-18	Stoke City	N
2016-17	Sunderland	N
1993-94	Swindon Town	N
2012-13	Wigan Athletic	N
1999-00	Wimbledon	N
2018-19	Cardiff City	Poss
2018-19	Fulham	Poss
2017-18	Swansea City	Poss

 

 

 

Not manhy bigger clubs than us in that list. Forest and Derby and a couple of others maybe in terms of honours and Shef Weds in terms if fanbase but all the rest are pretty much the same size as us or smaller, certianly in recent times anyway. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Because they didn't start with as much debt in the first place.

Because they had in recent years been more sensible (having learned from bitter experience) they started from a better financial position. For example in 17-18 their wage bill was £19 million and ours was £42 million (they were 10th, we were 14th). Last year, their expenses, including promotion costs, were 10 million less than ours. (I can provide the links if you want them.)

Or they were fortunate in that they still had a lot of players on pretty much league 1 wages whereas we still had a much higher wage bill due to our more recent stint in the premier league. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

28 minutes ago, king canary said:

Thing is Purple I think we agree on quite a bit really.

I acknowledge the reality of our situation and don't want us doing anything to endanger the future of the club. We just differ in a couple of key areas...

1) I don't think spending £20-30m this summer would have been a long danger to the club.

2) That if spending those sums is a long term danger to the club then I think our owners need to be more proactive about changing that. 

I agree with this also. Fundamentally the fact we can;t make these kind of purchases comes down to us not having owners able to underwrite any risk in the event it goes wrong and until that changes we will have the same constraints.

However I do think that when promoted with a team with an unprecedented level of saleable playing assets we could have afforded to find that bit extra to make the squad more competitive without taking an undue risk - i.e. take a "calculated risk". Even with Pukki having probably diminished his reputation in the prem we will still possibly sell 2 or 3 players this summer for around £50m. And in all these scenarios the doosday one also assumes that the players bought will suddenly become worthless whereas if you get the scouting right then they should still retain a significant value. 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

Some of us got 9/2 with BET 365 about 2 months ago for Villa to stay up. A quick look at the remaining fixtures was enough for me . 
 

Mind you I also had a quid on 10 nil yesterday. 😂🤣

[Felafel 0]

19 hours ago, Keith Scott said:

100 million well spent. They will now reap the rewards for taking the premier league seriously. Good luck to them.

True - it’s another year of premier league football.

but to counter that haven’t they lost about £40 and £70 million the last 2 seasons? God knows what this year will look like. 

I can’t deny they got the job done in the end but if eventually they fall back to the championship and their billionaire owners aren’t to interested in injecting cash anymore I don’t want to see them call crying on the radio again like in the summer of 2018.

[......and Smith must score. 1,336]

16 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Well that's strange because when we stayed in for three seasons it was no different.

 

16 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Once in the last four as you already know. Even with £100m for finishing bottom and parachute payments to top that up we show no signs of learning the game. 

 

A Magical Mystery Tour staying at the Hotel California looks on the cards here 😀

[sgncfc 1,221]

39 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

just once, I'd like to see us give it a bit of a go and if the upshot of failure is having to sell players on relegation then so be it

So where were you in 2015-16 - isn't that exactly what we did? £42.8m according to transfermarkt.com (Naismith, Klose, Pinto, Jarvis, Dorrans etc).

Thankfully that also included James Maddison who singlehandedly got us out of the mire two years later.

Those of you who say we should have done the same again are simply deluded.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

8 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

So where were you in 2015-16 - isn't that exactly what we did? £42.8m according to transfermarkt.com (Naismith, Klose, Pinto, Jarvis, Dorrans etc).

Thankfully that also included James Maddison who singlehandedly got us out of the mire two years later.

Those of you who say we should have done the same again are simply deluded.

Nope. We did not make the signings we needed to make at the start of the season. We did sign Klose and Naismith in January out of desperation but we should not have had to do that had we done proper business in the summer. Naismith and Jarvis were just rank bad scouting/judgment. Jarvis due to his injury record and Naismith because he was not the sort of player we needed or were lacking at the time. 

We have never spent what we needed to spend on the players we needed in the summer after promotion from the championship. The one time we got away with it was under Lambert where momentum carried us through. On the other occasions it has cost us. Same happened under Worthy with Dean Ashton signed 5 months too late. 

[king canary 7,580]

5 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Nope. We did not make the signings we needed to make at the start of the season. We did sign Klose and Naismith in January out of desperation but we should not have had to do that had we done proper business in the summer. Naismith and Jarvis were just rank bad scouting/judgment. Jarvis due to his injury record and Naismith because he was not the sort of player we needed or were lacking at the time. 

We have never spent what we needed to spend on the players we needed in the summer after promotion from the championship. The one time we got away with it was under Lambert where momentum carried us through. On the other occasions it has cost us. Same happened under Worthy with Dean Ashton signed 5 months too late. 

That just isn't right on the Lambert years- we added significantly to the squad in the summer after promotion and those players played important roles, it wasn't just momentum that carried us through.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

That just isn't right on the Lambert years- we added significantly to the squad in the summer after promotion and those players played important roles, it wasn't just momentum that carried us through.

Apologies must be my mind playing tricks on me then as I recall the bulk of the championship squad playing a prominant role in that first season but on reflection you are right we did sign Pilkington, Bennett, Morrison and Johnson plus a few others. I guess i just think of some of those as having played for us in the champ but that was after relegation! So I stand corrected. That season we did bolster the squad in the summer and its perhaps no coincidence that we stayed up although i still think momentum played a big part in some of our defensive players over performing in that first season. 

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

It still doesn't make sense to me.

It started to rain so we came back!😀

I managed to find a response to your point (The previous three years had bought combined losses of £17.6m) quicker than I expected in an explanation by Swiss Ramble. (see below) You may recall that I said, "The self-sustaining part is more recent - the lessons learnt after previous excess. " SR explains this: "SUFC have reduced gross debt from £70m in 2012 to just £2.1m in 2018, partly thanks to £35m of inter-company debt write-offs and £27m of debt to equity conversion. Cash balance of £1.3m gives net debt of £0.8m. Also only owe £1m in transfer fees."

In other words they have used McCabe,s money and the investment of Prince Abdullah to clear the debts from their previous extravagance including most of the 17.6 million you cite. Since then they have been following a sustainable strategy that has seen them promoted and able to invest more than us in the Premier league. We should be in a position to do likewise after this year, if we remain cautious. The net effect of all the years of profligacy by Sheffield Utd was debt and relegation and several years in League One. Sensibly they have used new investment to clear debt and start on a level playing field - since then they have prospered and benefited from a way that we were not able to owing to previous excess. Hopefully, we will learn as Sheffield Utd have done - keep within your budget and prosper.

One note of caution - I don't know if you have been following the Sheff Utd court case, but the outcome is such, that I expect owners will be very reluctant in the future to take on new investment in the way McCabe did. He basically ended up losing Utd "for a song"  lost all the money he had put in before. I can't see many owners finding this attractive.

 

 

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

Or they were fortunate in that they still had a lot of players on pretty much league 1 wages whereas we still had a much higher wage bill due to our more recent stint in the premier league. 

Yes. I don't think that the two statements are mutually exclusive.

[king canary 7,580]

13 minutes ago, Badger said:

It started to rain so we came back!😀

I managed to find a response to your point (The previous three years had bought combined losses of £17.6m) quicker than I expected in an explanation by Swiss Ramble. (see below) You may recall that I said, "The self-sustaining part is more recent - the lessons learnt after previous excess. " SR explains this: "SUFC have reduced gross debt from £70m in 2012 to just £2.1m in 2018, partly thanks to £35m of inter-company debt write-offs and £27m of debt to equity conversion. Cash balance of £1.3m gives net debt of £0.8m. Also only owe £1m in transfer fees."

In other words they have used McCabe,s money and the investment of Prince Abdullah to clear the debts from their previous extravagance including most of the 17.6 million you cite. Since then they have been following a sustainable strategy that has seen them promoted and able to invest more than us in the Premier league. We should be in a position to do likewise after this year, if we remain cautious. The net effect of all the years of profligacy by Sheffield Utd was debt and relegation and several years in League One. Sensibly they have used new investment to clear debt and start on a level playing field - since then they have prospered and benefited from a way that we were not able to owing to previous excess. Hopefully, we will learn as Sheffield Utd have done - keep within your budget and prosper.

One note of caution - I don't know if you have been following the Sheff Utd court case, but the outcome is such, that I expect owners will be very reluctant in the future to take on new investment in the way McCabe did. He basically ended up losing Utd "for a song"  lost all the money he had put in before. I can't see many owners finding this attractive.

 

 

Okay but this, largely contradicts this....

3 hours ago, Badger said:

No the owner did not cover these costs - you keep clinging to this delusion. The reason they were able to spend more is precisely because they have been more sensible in their financial management in recent years. They could spend more on promotion than we could because they had not taken calculated gambles in recent years. As their board made plain - they were a self-sustaining club!

They spent more after promotion because they were in a stronger position financially despite a lower revenue base than us. This is because they had not spent as heavily as us in the past.

They're ability to spend more this season wasn't due to sensible financial management, it was due to directors writing off massive loans. Even then they ran at a much higher wages to turnover ratio (which is far more relevant than just wages). 

You painted the picture of Sheffield United as a club following a long term sustainable financial model, when they are in fact bank rolled by wealthy owners who can write off £70m in debt in order to help the club. Basically having the 'margin for error' I've constantly mentioned in the past which you say is a bad thing.

The fact is Sheffield can spend £40m because they know if they go back down they'll be able to cope, in part due to owners having the money to do things like write off £35m in loans.

 

[Badger 2,405]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

Also, your agenda is showing here.

Yes they had a signicantly lower wage bill that season but that wage bill was vs a turnover of £21m (so about 90% wage to turnover) while our £42m wage budget was against a turnover of £62m. Which of those is the healthier position?

I'm not sure what your point is here and how it fits "my agenda?"

In general terms, if you start with a lower wage bill, you have more room to expand it, so there would seem to be advantages in Sheff Utd's position this year. Hopefully we will keep our wage bill lower than after previous relegations.

To be fair, however, we don't know how much of the £42 million was for players that have left us - although some may have gone with "golden goodbyes" - so will never know the complete picture.

[king canary 7,580]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I'm not sure what your point is here and how it fits "my agenda?"

In general terms, if you start with a lower wage bill, you have more room to expand it, so there would seem to be advantages in Sheff Utd's position this year. Hopefully we will keep our wage bill lower than after previous relegations.

To be fair, however, we don't know how much of the £42 million was for players that have left us - although some may have gone with "golden goodbyes" - so will never know the complete picture.

You're cherry picking stats in order to paint a certain picture with this.

Wages to turnover is significantly more important than just wages. 

If you're talking about room to expand this year than the much more pertinent fact is the post promotion wage bill £42m for them, rather than what they were paying in a standard Championship year.

[Badger 2,405]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

Okay but this, largely contradicts this....

They're ability to spend more this season wasn't due to sensible financial management, it was due to directors writing off massive loans. Even then they ran at a much higher wages to turnover ratio (which is far more relevant than just wages). 

You painted the picture of Sheffield United as a club following a long term sustainable financial model, when they are in fact bank rolled by wealthy owners who can write off £70m in debt in order to help the club. Basically having the 'margin for error' I've constantly mentioned in the past which you say is a bad thing.

The fact is Sheffield can spend £40m because they know if they go back down they'll be able to cope, in part due to owners having the money to do things like write off £35m in loans.

 

No, you misunderstand the figures. The debt write off cleared the decks from excesses of the past and enabled them to operate on a sustainable basis. They entered the PL, with hardly any debt and a lower wage bill - of course they can afford to spend more.

As to your view that they knew they would be able to pay off any debt - at this stage they didn't even know who their owner was going to be!! Do you really think that the joint owners would be underwriting loans for the other person with whom they were in deep dispute.

[Badger 2,405]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

You're cherry picking stats in order to paint a certain picture with this.

Not at all

Wages to turnover is significantly more important than just wages. 

In what way - I'm not sure of your point?

If you're talking about room to expand this year than the much more pertinent fact is the post promotion wage bill £42m for them, rather than what they were paying in a standard Championship year.

Again, I'm not sure of your point. Their post promotion wage bill was £42 million: ours was nearly £10 million higher - how does this give us an advantage?

The more important point is that they finished last season with about £20 million pounds less debt than we did, because they had learnt their lesson. This + a lower wage bill gave them more room for manoeuvre to buy the players that had only a marginal impact on their season anyway.