Annual Report

[king canary 7,669]

2 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I find it staggering just how much we spent on wages when you consider just how poor our squad was in comparison to all the other teams we were trying to compete with. I really think we totally lost our way with recruitment. 

The whole point of trying to squeeze the most out of a less talented squad is that the wages should be significantly lower. On the face of it we signed a bunch of poor players on really high wages.

I wonder how much parity we have between players- ie everyone sitting between £30-50k p/w meaning some of the lesser players are overpaid? I just don't know.

You wouldn't have look at our signings and thought they'd be on massive deals- all of them came from leagues that historically pay less, 3 of them came from teams that had just been relegated so likely would have seen their wages drop pre joining us. 

I find giving Kabak, Williams, Normann and Gilmour a combined £15m in wages to be really quite incredible though- all that money and none of them represented a significant upgrade on what was already here.

[Badger 2,412]

5 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I find it staggering just how much we spent on wages when you consider just how poor our squad was in comparison to all the other teams we were trying to compete with. I really think we totally lost our way with recruitment. 

The whole point of trying to squeeze the most out of a less talented squad is that the wages should be significantly lower. On the face of it we signed a bunch of poor players on really high wages.

I'm not sure that our squad was on the whole that much worse than Brentford's for example (and ditto Sheff U, the time before) - we just didn't find an effective way of deploying it.

[chicken 2,642]

1 minute ago, Petriix said:

Not at all. If our wage budget wasn't the lowest in the Premier League by a significant margin then we've overspent relative to our performance. Having an average Premier League wage budget while performing so poorly is an absurdity. I had assumed we must be offering way below average wages, hence our struggle to attract decent players. Our recruitment has been worse than I could have imagined. 

Right, so off you go then. You've put forward half an argument, you need to corroborate the evidence now. 

[king canary 7,669]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I'm not sure that our squad was on the whole that much worse than Brentford's for example (and ditto Sheff U, the time before) - we just didn't find an effective way of deploying it.

No, it was that much worse than theirs.

[Danbury Yellow 126]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I do remember that, but i think that was £100 and in a previous financial year. 

Oh well, either way, someone’s been kind and while it might not purchase some shine pads these days…..was the thought that counted!!! 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, chicken said:

Right, so off you go then. You've put forward half an argument, you need to corroborate the evidence now. 

He doesn't really need to though does he.

Where are we clawing back £23m in transfer fees to break even on our transfer spend, ignoring wages.

[Badger 2,412]

2 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Not at all. If our wage budget wasn't the lowest in the Premier League by a significant margin then we've overspent relative to our performance. Having an average Premier League wage budget while performing so poorly is an absurdity. I had assumed we must be offering way below average wages, hence our struggle to attract decent players. Our recruitment has been worse than I could have imagined. 

Good players by and large, will only go to a newly promoted team as a last resort. We saw this with Kabak, for example, who kept us waiting for ages in the hope that a better offer would come along.

[nutty nigel 7,618]

2 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Not at all. If our wage budget wasn't the lowest in the Premier League by a significant margin then we've overspent relative to our performance. Having an average Premier League wage budget while performing so poorly is an absurdity. I had assumed we must be offering way below average wages, hence our struggle to attract decent players. Our recruitment has been worse than I could have imagined. 

Unfortunately players aren't paid by performance. They are paid by how much money clubs get. Any new TV deal just ups wages and the money goes straight out of the game. Of course they would have got another load of wedge if they'd performed to the level to keep us up.

[chicken 2,642]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

I'm not sure that our squad was on the whole that much worse than Brentford's for example (and ditto Sheff U, the time before) - we just didn't find an effective way of deploying it.

The other thing for me is that individually, we were still not paying more for players in transfer fees, than you would expect for top championship players.

£8m for Sargent, for example, is probably less than you would pay for a decent championship striker. Just look at the history of the better strikers in this division - Armstron £15m, Afobe £10-12m, Rhodes £8-9m, Assombalonga £15m. 

[chicken 2,642]

6 minutes ago, Badger said:

I'm not sure that our squad was on the whole that much worse than Brentford's for example (and ditto Sheff U, the time before) - we just didn't find an effective way of deploying it.

Both of those sides didn't require whole-sale changes either. And instead added a few new faces. So were much more settled. Arguably, Brentford didn't switch their approach to their style of play either.

If there is an argument to be had, it is certainly that we appeared ill prepared to be playing the new 4-3-3 system.

[Petriix 2,853]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Unfortunately players aren't paid by performance. They are paid by how much money clubs get. Any new TV deal just ups wages and the money goes straight out of the game. Of course they would have got another load of wedge if they'd performed to the level to keep us up.

They really should be paid on performance though. Previously we structured our contracts with a heavy emphasis on bonuses over basic wages. Under McNally I recall making a significant profit on relegation because we avoided paying an obscene sum to the players which would have been due had we survived.

I am genuinely alarmed that Webber has blown such an astronomical amount of money while making the squad significantly worse. 

[chicken 2,642]

8 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

He doesn't really need to though does he.

Where are we clawing back £23m in transfer fees to break even on our transfer spend, ignoring wages.

Yes. He does. If you are claiming we paid over the odds for rubbish players, you need to establish what the odds were. As in, comparables. Petriix claimed they were on "high wages" - that needs to be evidenced or everyone has to just assume it to be wrong and just another BS hyperbole post failing to understand how modern football works.

[Badger 2,412]

2 minutes ago, chicken said:

Both of those sides didn't require whole-sale changes either. And instead added a few new faces. So were much more settled. Arguably, Brentford didn't switch their approach to their style of play either.

If there is an argument to be had, it is certainly that we appeared ill prepared to be playing the new 4-3-3 system.

I think that this is important for the next time we go up (whenever that might be). Fans always obsess about buying loads of players and spending loads of money but the evidence is that it has a very limited success in keeping sides up.

Continuity is important with a few additions but most important is developing a way to maximise what you have - preferably developed in the championship. I am convinced that if we are ever to stay up, we need to be prepared to be more direct at times, for example.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

Directors remuneration for the first time in a while at £177K. That must be Zoe - possibly 4 months of.

Key management personel took home £2.6m down from £3.1m the previous year. I'd imagin a promotion bonus the difference there. As usual, its not revealed which roles or who this is but I think its pretty obvious that the gravy train continues to roll along nicely. 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Jim Smith

[Jim Smith 2,339]

6 minutes ago, chicken said:

Both of those sides didn't require whole-sale changes either. And instead added a few new faces. So were much more settled. Arguably, Brentford didn't switch their approach to their style of play either.

If there is an argument to be had, it is certainly that we appeared ill prepared to be playing the new 4-3-3 system.

We still are. And yet we still persist with it despite the fact it suits none of our players. 

[nutty nigel 7,618]

Just now, Petriix said:

They really should be paid on performance though. Previously we structured our contracts with a heavy emphasis on bonuses over basic wages. Under McNally I recall making a significant profit on relegation because we avoided paying an obscene sum to the players which would have been due had we survived.

I am genuinely alarmed that Webber has blown such an astronomical amount of money while making the squad significantly worse. 

Folk would be even more alarmed if the money hadn't been blown. That money comes in and goes out. The whole thing is obscene but the truth is it seems most fans want a benefactor to chuck in some of their own money so that even more can go out.

I remember in the early days of the pandemic posters on here were calling for a reset in values. That was forgotten as fast as it was suggested. I just go to games and try not to think about these realities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheBaldOne66 697]

27 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I think wage austerity will be the consequence of our poor transfer business should we fail to win promotion, will be a 2017 level reset when we shed Ruddy, Bennett et al, with Bennett being the biggest surprise. 

Cantwell, Krul, Dowell, Pukki, that will be the starting point. 

Webber has taken us full circle. After bashing the McNally regime we're now in the same place.

The question now should be whether he should be given the opportunity to sort out his own mess, because McNally wasn't. 

No he shouldn’t! He should just **** off up a mountain somewhere and never come back!

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

43 minutes ago, Badger said:

I've posted the breakdown on previous page.

Just to add, total wage costs as a percentage of turnover were 88 per cent, against 116 per cent in the Championship season.

[chicken 2,642]

7 minutes ago, Petriix said:

They really should be paid on performance though. Previously we structured our contracts with a heavy emphasis on bonuses over basic wages. Under McNally I recall making a significant profit on relegation because we avoided paying an obscene sum to the players which would have been due had we survived.

I am genuinely alarmed that Webber has blown such an astronomical amount of money while making the squad significantly worse. 

Worse in that he couldn't find another Buendia or a Skipp that we could afford. So, like other clubs, had to try and find a gamble that could end up being as good, or close to. That it didn't work out, like Nutty and Badger have said, isn't incredibly unusual. Fulham spent more and it didn't work for them. Watford have spent £30m on Sarr and he's failed to keep them there twice. And for all the financial outlay, Forest are not yet reaping the rewards for it either, note I say 'yet'.

Villa, who some may point to as the exception to the rule, largely signed players they had had in on loan like Mings, the season before. So it wasn't just new faces. They knew their roles, they knew the players around them, they knew their manager etc etc etc.

[TheBaldOne66 697]

9 minutes ago, Badger said:

I think that this is important for the next time we go up (whenever that might be). Fans always obsess about buying loads of players and spending loads of money but the evidence is that it has a very limited success in keeping sides up.

Continuity is important with a few additions but most important is developing a way to maximise what you have - preferably developed in the championship. I am convinced that if we are ever to stay up, we need to be prepared to be more direct at times, for example.

It worked under Lambert though, we never overspent, we bought players who wanted to prove they could do it at a higher level, and we had a coach who made them believe they could make that step up too. Whether you loved Farke or not, he never instilled that belief in the players he had, quite the opposite of I recall in fact

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

Yes. He does. If you are claiming we paid over the odds for rubbish players, you need to establish what the odds were. As in, comparables. Petriix claimed they were on "high wages" - that needs to be evidenced or everyone has to just assume it to be wrong and just another BS hyperbole post failing to understand how modern football works.

Percent of wages versus turnover figures are published annually. It will be a season behind right now, but Southampton and Wolves run at 72%, and Leeds at 63%.

Its easy enough to deduce from their accounts last year what their wage bills were and what their turnovers were. In our last Prem season our wage bill was higher than couple of clubs I think.

Until all clubs have published their accounts we can't do a full comparison, but its easy enough to hazard a guess that we aren't going to have by far the lowest wage bill in the league last season based on the just published numbers, despite being by far the worst footballing side.

Edited October 17, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[TIL 1010 4,791]

40 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Is this the thread where we all hold the club to account over stuff we don't understand?

Where are all the FPAs?

Tangie come on down...

Unfortunately Nutty the only poster to hold a comprehensive register of the FPA's was our dear friend Lapps.

[TheBaldOne66 697]

11 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Folk would be even more alarmed if the money hadn't been blown. That money comes in and goes out. The whole thing is obscene but the truth is it seems most fans want a benefactor to chuck in some of their own money so that even more can go out.

I remember in the early days of the pandemic posters on here were calling for a reset in values. That was forgotten as fast as it was suggested. I just go to games and try not to think about these realities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The money thing is why I’ve fallen out of love with the game and don’t go anymore sadly, it’s obscene and unless it changes it’s just going to get worse.

[TIL 1010 4,791]

Trivial i know but Zoe first appeared in the annual report back in 2019 as Ward and again in 2020 and 2021 however this year she appears as Webber.

[chicken 2,642]

31 minutes ago, king canary said:

I find giving Kabak, Williams, Normann and Gilmour a combined £15m in wages to be really quite incredible though- all that money and none of them represented a significant upgrade on what was already here.

Not sure this is 100% accurate, in that I believe the £15m is for "loan fees". So not just wages, but the fee for the loans too. Fahrman, for example, was rumoured to have cost us £2m though that was cancelled so I am guessing we didn't pay the entire amount but that is an indication.

Roughly speaking, give or take, that loan fee for each plus £40k pw (roughly £2m per year) for each, brings you to around £16m. Obviously that's just extrapolating Fahrmans arrangement and we know that Gilmour, for example, incurred us fees when he wasn't played. We also heard rumours that Williams is on a fair whack at Man Utd. I think you can see what I am getting at though. 
 

[chicken 2,642]

9 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Percent of wages versus turnover figures are published annually. It will be a season behind right now, but Southampton and Wolves run at 72%, and Leeds at 63%.

Its easy enough to deduce from their accounts last year what their wage bills were and what their turnovers were. In our last Prem season our wage bill was higher than several clubs, including Leeds.

Until all clubs have published their accounts we can't do a full comparison, but its easy enough to hazard a guess that we aren't going to have by far the lowest wage bill in the league last season based on the just published numbers, despite being by far the worst footballing side.

I wouldn't rely on % as a clue. You'd need to compare their turnovers first. Wolves and Southampton will have higher turnovers from the start owing to having been established in the premier league for some time meaning they would have gained more money from their league position which starts to get quite hefty. Plus being more established opens doors for more valuable sponsorships etc.

Put simply: I might have £10 and spend £8 on expenses. You might have £20 and spent £15 on expenses. You have spent less as a % but still more than me.

[TIL 1010 4,791]

Page 26 states ' The club is committed to a robust consultative process with its supporters '.

I can think of someone who will be along to disagree with that. 😂

 

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

3 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

No need.

We're f*cked if we don't sell players. 

Nobody wants Max Aarons and everybody realised Cantwell is a dud.

Therefore we're on the way to being f*cked.

The end.

Big Andy is worth a few £ if the money needs making so will Gibbs be now 

[TIL 1010 4,791]

The annual report of 2021 lists Michael Foulger as holding 98,200 shares and this year 18,200 so looks like MA has purchased 80,000 of his shares and not all.

Edited October 17, 2022 by TIL 1010

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

7 minutes ago, chicken said:

I wouldn't rely on % as a clue. You'd need to compare their turnovers first. 

Both of those things are published each year in the annual accounts of all clubs.