Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
canary cherub

How many non-footballing staff do we really need?

Recommended Posts

Shack Attack, my stance on here for quite a long time has been that the board have been neglecting the football team whilst plowing money into non-football projects making a decline on the pitch inevitable. I have frequently been told i am wrong and have had quite a few facts and figures and plenty of grand assumptions ("we spend most of our money on player wages"etc) to "prove" this. So i have looked into the latest accounts we have-admittedly quite out of date now-to make my own mind up, and i think they back my argument up. Alot of people don`t seem to want to debate them any more which is a shame.

On non-footballing staff, if the £6.4million bill remains at a similar level without the parachute payments it will probably represent 35-40% of the clubs turnover which i would say is very worrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting way of looking at the football/non-football question which has just occured to me is that in the year covered by the last accounts the main expenditure on the football side of things only cost the club £6million-£9million wages less a £3million profit in the transfer market-out of a £24.7million turnover.

I know people will come back and say there are other expenses not covered by this figure, but i think if you bear in mind the £3.9million spent on infrastructure and the non-football wage bill it gives a pretty clear impression that non-football matters took precedence in that year. And the result has been a totally predictable decline on the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Chase went a big thing at the time was how many "company cars" there were, I cant remember now how many maybe someone else can? and does anyone know how many "company cars" there are now? Always a good indicator of how many chiefs there are to Indians.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Shack Attack, my stance on here for quite a long time has been that the board have been neglecting the football team whilst plowing money into non-football projects making a decline on the pitch inevitable. I have frequently been told i am wrong and have had quite a few facts and figures and plenty of grand assumptions ("we spend most of our money on player wages"etc) to "prove" this. So i have looked into the latest accounts we have-admittedly quite out of date now-to make my own mind up, and i think they back my argument up. Alot of people don`t seem to want to debate them any more which is a shame.

On non-footballing staff, if the £6.4million bill remains at a similar level without the parachute payments it will probably represent 35-40% of the clubs turnover which i would say is very worrying.

[/quote]

Mr Carrow, I wasn''t aware of your overall stance on here as I very rarely get involved in threads which directly discuss the accounts. I''m sure that the issues are very important and that you''ve made some valid points, it''s just that I find the accounts quite difficult to understand and the discussions that surround them far too complicated for somebody with an un-mathematical mind like myself. So I''m not really qualified to answer why people don''t want to debate these topics.

One thing I am curious about is what exactly a ''non-footballing member of staff'' is. Does it simply refer to staff in Delia''s restaurant, the travel agents and anybody else who works at the ground outside of match days or does it refer to anybody who''s not directly involved in football? If it''s the latter then I would guess that part of this is due to the new stand, which obviously has more of an emphasis on corporate hospitality than the old South Stand. Whilst this is something that I''m not keen on, it is part and parcel of football these days. Do we know what other similar sized clubs spend on these type of things?

The rise of corporate football in this country is something I find very worrying as we simply don''t know when these people will grow bored of our game and start entertaining their wives/husbands/children/business partners somewhere else. However, I think that as this is a trend in football as a whole then it''s unfair for you to single out the board of NCFC for criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wishing to be a smart arse BB but I made that point on this very thread a few days ago. Scroll back and have a look?

GPB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="GPB"]

Not wishing to be a smart arse BB but I made that point on this very thread a few days ago. Scroll back and have a look?

GPB

[/quote]Yes you did mate but i was just wondering how many there are now as a comparison to the perceived well run to the badly run club? Does the number of cars show in the acounts anyone know?

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

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...