How many non-footballing staff do we really need?

[canary cherub 1]

The following increases in staff took place between 2001/2 and 2005/6:

Average monthly number of regular employees                     2001/2                  2005/6            Increase

Football                                                                                 71                           75                     4

Other                                                                                     96                        134                    38

(Source: Annual Reports 2003 and 2006)

 

 

[7rew 0]

Do the stewards count?  If so there is a large, relatively unstable, number of employees that could explain the change.

[blahblahblah 2]

I guess the answer to that question is "How much income do we need to generate from non-footballing sources ?".  I''d say as much as possible.As much as it is to my distate, and no doubt yours, football is becoming increasingly corporate.

[megson 0]

I don''t know How many non-footballing staff do we really need?

(this feels like a "how many X does it take to change a lightbulb joke to me..............)

 

[Chunky! 0]

Other would include stewards, caterers, toilet cleaners, etc, most of which are short-term contracts.  I guess we could reduce the amount of matchday food and let the toilets rot though, then we''d have an extra £1 million for transfers per season.....OTBC!Chunky

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Mystic. What an excellent observation.

(But it seems you''re getting some replies from the non-footballing staff so far!)

More evidence of slack management after our brief premiership interlude, one suspects.

We need a clear separation of non-footballing income and expenditure, net profit, and net contributions to the football side.

One suspects that everything is mixed up and as clear as mud.

Are revenues being treated/spun as profit? One has to wonder.

Such an increase in non-footballing staff really should have been explained in a note to the accounts one would think. 

OTBC

 

 

[alex_ncfc 644]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Mystic. What an excellent observation.

(But it seems you''re getting some replies from the non-footballing staff so far!)

More evidence of slack management after our brief premiership interlude, one suspects.

We need a clear separation of non-footballing income and expenditure, net profit, and net contributions to the football side.

One suspects that everything is mixed up and as clear as mud.

Are revenues being treated/spun as profit? One has to wonder.

Such an increase in non-footballing staff really should have been explained in a note to the accounts one would think. 

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

Didn''t Iwan Roberts have an interview on Radio Norfolk just after Worthy had been sacked? It was a very frank interview and he mentioned mistakes the club had made after winning promotion to the Premiership. I seem to recall him mentioning wholesale staff changes made throughout the club, such as the whole catering staff at Colney being replaced. So you may be right there, BBB.

 

[Putney Canary 0]

The correct answer is - nobody (including me) outside the club has a clue. Its evidence of absolutely nothing.For those STILL going on about non-footballing activities carried out by the club - show me ONE club of our size or bigger who doesn''t also do a lot of off field activities, and I will admit you have a point. Go on, name just ONE club.

[In Dubious Battle 0]

If the extra 38 staff all earnt the national average salary of £20,000 per annum they would cost us an extra £760,000 every season which amounts to a half decent signing.

However norwich city is run as a business and no business would recruit an extra 38 staff unless at least some of them were going to be generating income, if the 38 extra''s make more than they are costing where''s the problem?

 

 

[megson 0]

Seriously guys, over a 4 year period we took on 38 more people.

38. Over 4 years.

9 or 10 a year.

This needs a seperate note in the accounts?

I think we have bigger things to worry about.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="7rew"]Do the stewards count?  If so there is a large, relatively unstable, number of employees that could explain the change.
[/quote]

The stewards are employed by a separate company 7rew, ie. subcontracted. 

[gazzathegreat 0]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]

If the extra 38 staff all earnt the national average salary of £20,000 per annum they would cost us an extra £760,000 every season which amounts to a half decent signing.

However norwich city is run as a business and no business would recruit an extra 38 staff unless at least some of them were going to be generating income, if the 38 extra''s make more than they are costing where''s the problem?

 

 

[/quote]

If the 38 extra staff are as mentioned, cleaners, office people, catering, they won''t be earning anything near to £20,000. In fact a lot of them will be part time.....who is included?  I thought all the catering staff were under Delia''s Canary Catering, are they included in the club accounts.  Then the box office people, some of them are part time.  It''s impossible to work out, unless you are Neil Doncaster.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Non-player wages cost the club £6.4million in the last financial year so don`t kid yourselves its not a big issue. In the accounts overall wages were £15.4million and player wages £9million. Without the £7.1million parachute payment our turnover in that financial year would have been £16.8million so the club need to look at cutting this figure drastically to cope without the parachute payments.

Or of course they might just cut down the size and quality of the first team squad even further to save money.......

[megson 0]

lets not forget non players wages include:

Manager, Assistant manager, First team Coach, Reserve coach, physio (and team), Academy/Youth coaches, scouts, Chairman, Press Officers, Kit man, Secretaries (and other necessary office staff) sponsorship and sales team, Ticket office staff.

The largest chunk of that £6.4m is going to be going on those directly linked to the playing side so lets no kid ourselves we are spending £6.4m on tea ladies for delia either or things that don''t exist at every football club in the country.

 

[Hairy Canary 668]

The only way to accurately compare these two figures is by cost. The number of employees information has too many variables, part time, lowly paid etc.

As Mr Carrow says last year we spent £6.4million on non-player wages last year - can we compare that with the 2001/02 figures? It is a worrying trend but its very difficult to work out if this is extravegance or people employed in off the field capacities that generate more money than they cost. I very much agree with BBB that the non-footballing side should have separate accounts to clarify if it justifies the effort and expenditure it uses up. 

[elppits 0]

Between the Dates mentioned did we or did we not build and new stadium and increase our capacity.That may also explain why we have seen an increase in staff.

[megson 0]

I would agree with Hairy Canary here.

While I think its easy to get over excited about what these figures actually mean, it WOULD be interesting to see them accounted on their own.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Putney Canary"]The correct answer is - nobody (including me) outside the club has a clue. Its evidence of absolutely nothing.

For those STILL going on about non-footballing activities carried out by the club - show me ONE club of our size or bigger who doesn''t also do a lot of off field activities, and I will admit you have a point. Go on, name just ONE club.
[/quote]

The point is Putney that there''s little doubt we are understrength on the football side.  It''s yet again a question of priorities, and yet another example of where the club''s priorities appear to lie.  If the ratio of football to non-football increases was 12 to 38 instead of 4 to 38, I would think that''s about right (provided it''s not 12 sports scientists!).

The increase does not include matchday stewards or catering staff, who as other posters have pointed out are not employed directly by NCFC.  I wish the club would stop bleating about "transparency" and put it into practice by being more open about what these people do.

 

 

  

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Putney Canary"]The correct answer is - nobody (including me) outside the club has a clue. Its evidence of absolutely nothing.

For those STILL going on about non-footballing activities carried out by the club - show me ONE club of our size or bigger who doesn''t also do a lot of off field activities, and I will admit you have a point. Go on, name just ONE club.
[/quote]

Given the performance on the pitch over the last two seasons, the tiny squad, lack of replacements for players sold etc. it seems pretty obvious that the club cannot afford such reckless expenditure on non-football activities. Why is it seen as a risk to spend money on talented players who may bring success on the pitch or be sold for a large profit, but safe and sensible to throw money at a new box-office,offices to rent out, new pitch etc. "risking" decline on the pitch, supporter revolt and possible relegation??

I can only assume that some people get as big a thrill when the accounts hit the doormatt showing a huge profit (and tax payment....) as they would seeing their team promoted. What a sad,sad state of affairs.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]

The only way to accurately compare these two figures is by cost. The number of employees information has too many variables, part time, lowly paid etc.

As Mr Carrow says last year we spent £6.4million on non-player wages last year - can we compare that with the 2001/02 figures? It is a worrying trend but its very difficult to work out if this is extravegance or people employed in off the field capacities that generate more money than they cost. I very much agree with BBB that the non-footballing side should have separate accounts to clarify if it justifies the effort and expenditure it uses up. 

[/quote]

Hairy:

In 2005/6 non-player wages were £6,334,607 (25.6% of turnover - player wages 36.5% of turnover)

In 2001/2 non-player wages were £3,057,061 (19.9% of turnover - player wages 34.2% of turnover)

Therefore as a % of turnover, non-player wages increased nearly three times as much as player wages (6.5% compared to 2.3%)

 

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I can only assume that some people get as big a thrill when the accounts hit the doormatt showing a huge profit (and tax payment....) as they would seeing their team promoted. What a sad,sad state of affairs.

[/quote]

Almost as sad as the people who spend large chunks of their lives reading through those same accounts and posting their findings on internet forums on a daily basis I''d imagine.

Anybody see the U-21''s last night? Quite an entertaining game I thought. Oops.....sorry....football related, best not talk about it on here.

[GPB 0]

before you can compare you need to know

1. exactly who is under the "football" catagory (at 71 it must include coaches, colney, manager etc?)

2. whether part time catering staff are included and if so does who counts as 1...is it two people that work half a day each or whatever.

It could just be that part time are counted differently and the club has changed its policy on employment?

On other specifc posts here..

On Iwans point re staff, I do remember the catering staff all changing at Colney when we wnet up. that was a the same time that Worthy banged the table up there about Academey parents not eating in the main dining hall, and generally got carried away with it all. It also coincided with a sponsored deal with Mccains who think re furbished the kitchens at the time. 

Remember when Chase left and the accounts were scrutinised? There were 100''s of people at the club and , if I remember rightly, loads of company cars.

The increase in the ground is a good point. South Stand and NU Corner infill must increase the Catering / kiosk people a bit?

As a member of the Gunn Club, it presumably means that there will still be one person serving you at the bar as the other three are replacing the Wherry that has just run out.

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="megson"]

lets not forget non players wages include:

Manager, Assistant manager, First team Coach, Reserve coach, physio (and team), Academy/Youth coaches, scouts, Chairman, Press Officers, Kit man, Secretaries (and other necessary office staff) sponsorship and sales team, Ticket office staff.

The largest chunk of that £6.4m is going to be going on those directly linked to the playing side so lets no kid ourselves we are spending £6.4m on tea ladies for delia either or things that don''t exist at every football club in the country.

[/quote]

You are mistaken megson.  The staff underlined above are all included on the playing side, probably the manager''s secretary too, unless you imagine that we have 70+ players on the books.

 

[megson 0]

[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="megson"]

lets not forget non players wages include:

Manager, Assistant manager, First team Coach, Reserve coach, physio (and team), Academy/Youth coaches, scouts, Chairman, Press Officers, Kit man, Secretaries (and other necessary office staff) sponsorship and sales team, Ticket office staff.

The largest chunk of that £6.4m is going to be going on those directly linked to the playing side so lets no kid ourselves we are spending £6.4m on tea ladies for delia either or things that don''t exist at every football club in the country.

[/quote]

You are mistaken megson.  The staff underlined above are all included on the playing side, probably the manager''s secretary too, unless you imagine that we have 70+ players on the books.

 

[/quote]

Dammit. I''ll admit the number of playing staff passed me by in the OP and that''s a fair point, that number would seem to include the coaching staff.

However we don''t know exactly who comes under what so its hard to quantify that figure in either a positive or negative light.

We also need to remember that the staffling levels include those at colney not just at the ground, and a training centre of that size would need a decent number of ''admin'' staff would these be ''playing'' staff or not?

[Mello Yello 2,279]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I can only assume that some people get as big a thrill when the accounts hit the doormatt showing a huge profit (and tax payment....) as they would seeing their team promoted. What a sad,sad state of affairs.

[/quote]

Almost as sad as the people who spend large chunks of their lives reading through those same accounts and posting their findings on internet forums on a daily basis I''d imagine.

Anybody see the U-21''s last night? Quite an entertaining game I thought. Oops.....sorry....football related, best not talk about it on here.

[/quote]

What''s up? Not the kind of discussion that appeals to you? I find Mr Carrow and Mystic most enlightening.........But then again, I suppose I wanna be in their gang - and not yours.[8-|]

[BBFF 0]

I only need to say one thing.... FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I can only assume that some people get as big a thrill when the accounts hit the doormatt showing a huge profit (and tax payment....) as they would seeing their team promoted. What a sad,sad state of affairs.

[/quote]

Almost as sad as the people who spend large chunks of their lives reading through those same accounts and posting their findings on internet forums on a daily basis I''d imagine.

Anybody see the U-21''s last night? Quite an entertaining game I thought. Oops.....sorry....football related, best not talk about it on here.

[/quote]

What''s up? Not the kind of discussion that appeals to you? I find Mr Carrow and Mystic most enlightening.........But then again, I suppose I wanna be in their gang - and not yours.[8-|]

[/quote]

I find it interesting occasionally just not every day Mello. I just find it odd that the people who complain continuously about the board being obsessed with off-field activities seem equally obsessed with it themselves.

Oh, and I haven''t been in a gang since I was at school.

[Mello Yello 2,279]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I can only assume that some people get as big a thrill when the accounts hit the doormatt showing a huge profit (and tax payment....) as they would seeing their team promoted. What a sad,sad state of affairs.

[/quote]

Almost as sad as the people who spend large chunks of their lives reading through those same accounts and posting their findings on internet forums on a daily basis I''d imagine.

Anybody see the U-21''s last night? Quite an entertaining game I thought. Oops.....sorry....football related, best not talk about it on here.

[/quote]

What''s up? Not the kind of discussion that appeals to you? I find Mr Carrow and Mystic most enlightening.........But then again, I suppose I wanna be in their gang - and not yours.[8-|]

[/quote]

I find it interesting occasionally just not every day Mello. I just find it odd that the people who complain continuously about the board being obsessed with off-field activities seem equally obsessed with it themselves.

Oh, and I haven''t been in a gang since I was at school.

[/quote]

I don''t think that they''re obsessed at all. I think that they''re just stating their opinion and backing it up with hard facts and not assumption or hearsay. There are those who take great pleasure and are so quick to slap folk down - when the alleged perpetrator hasn''t any evidence pertaining to their statement or rumour that they''ve typed. Then, those same pleasurable ''slappers'' become squirmingly uncomfortable and go on the defensive, and try to ''kill the thread'' or sweep it under the carpet when folk type what is fact and to be true.

And, I haven''t been to school since I joined a gang.......[:|]

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I can only assume that some people get as big a thrill when the accounts hit the doormatt showing a huge profit (and tax payment....) as they would seeing their team promoted. What a sad,sad state of affairs.

[/quote]

Almost as sad as the people who spend large chunks of their lives reading through those same accounts and posting their findings on internet forums on a daily basis I''d imagine.

Anybody see the U-21''s last night? Quite an entertaining game I thought. Oops.....sorry....football related, best not talk about it on here.

[/quote]

What''s up? Not the kind of discussion that appeals to you? I find Mr Carrow and Mystic most enlightening.........But then again, I suppose I wanna be in their gang - and not yours.[8-|]

[/quote]

I find it interesting occasionally just not every day Mello. I just find it odd that the people who complain continuously about the board being obsessed with off-field activities seem equally obsessed with it themselves.

Oh, and I haven''t been in a gang since I was at school.

[/quote]

I don''t think that they''re obsessed at all. I think that they''re just stating their opinion and backing it up with hard facts and not assumption or hearsay. There are those who take great pleasure and are so quick to slap folk down - when the alleged perpetrator hasn''t any evidence pertaining to their statement or rumour that they''ve typed. Then, those same pleasurable ''slappers'' become squirmingly uncomfortable and go on the defensive, and try to ''kill the thread'' or sweep it under the carpet when folk type what is fact and to be true.

And, I haven''t been to school since I joined a gang.......[:|]

[/quote]

I''m certainly not becoming ''squirmingly uncomfortable'' or ''defensive'' so I guess you must be referring to somebody else.

As far as I can see the facts and the truth are that NCFC has employed an extra 38 non-footballing staff in the last four years, an average of 9.5 per year. I don''t find that hugely alarming, you obviously do, I can deal with that. For me it''s just further evidence of the way football is going in this country and not something that is unique to our football club.

My original point was that to me it''s a little bit rich to commenting on the sad state of affairs of people who get a thrill from the accounts landing on their mat showing a huge profit when you seem so obsessed with those accounts yourself.

Different strokes for different folks I guess, perhaps I should just stick to posting about football matters and leave the posters who are obsessed with non-football matters to their attempts to scrutinise every last page of the accounts for our benefit.

[GMF 736]

[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="Hairy Canary"]

The only way to accurately compare these two figures is by cost. The number of employees information has too many variables, part time, lowly paid etc.

As Mr Carrow says last year we spent £6.4million on non-player wages last year - can we compare that with the 2001/02 figures? It is a worrying trend but its very difficult to work out if this is extravegance or people employed in off the field capacities that generate more money than they cost. I very much agree with BBB that the non-footballing side should have separate accounts to clarify if it justifies the effort and expenditure it uses up. 

[/quote]

Hairy:

In 2005/6 non-player wages were £6,334,607 (25.6% of turnover - player wages 36.5% of turnover)

In 2001/2 non-player wages were £3,057,061 (19.9% of turnover - player wages 34.2% of turnover)

Therefore as a % of turnover, non-player wages increased nearly three times as much as player wages (6.5% compared to 2.3%)

 

[/quote]

To be fair, Mystic, this whole post ignores the basic fact that Turnover over the period has risen from £15,3m, which included the £1.6m play-off finals windfall, to £24.7m, which, of course, includes £7m parachute payment.

Turnover for non football income rose from £7.69m in 2002 (catering £2.31m, commercial £3.48m, other income £1.91m) to £8.82m in 2006 (catering £3.83m, commercial £4.03m, other income £0.96m) so the real question is are all these extra staff justified by the increased turnover?

Personally, I don''t know the answer to that one, but, either way, they do make a significant contribution to overall turnover.