Profits from Player Trading

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

.

On a related point - Does anybody know when the premiership payments are made? What I mean - It''s said to be worth 50m for Derby to win the play-off final but in reality is this the money that they get at the end of next season?

 

 

[/quote]

im always intrigued by when they say a place in the premiership could be "worth" 50 million.

 I could pay £1000 for a car "worth" £500 couldnt i? id be interested to know the exact amounts teams make in the premiership. And as u say NN it is interesting to know how the money is paid out too.

jas :)

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Nutty, yep we`re back on that merry-go-round again! I really don`t claim to know the accounts inside out and will always have a look at someone elses take on them-people like Ricardo and CambridgeCanary seem to know what they`re talking about. A good example is that Mystic reads a profit on players of £3.4million (i think) whilst the last time i checked i made it £6.1million. Mystic`s figure looks more likely though so i`m prepared to go with that. The figures for things like player and non-player wages and infrastructure costs are more explicit and speak for themselves i think.

[/quote]

Mr C, you''re not entirely wrong.  £6 million or so was the amount we received from player sales.  Subtract what we spent and you get the £3+ million figure, ie. profit.

A word of warning: CambridgeCanary is not the same person as Cambridge Canary.  Cambridge Canary I believe has a legal background, posts sparingly and talks a lot of sense.  CambridgeCanary also posts sparingly but seemed keen to squash this thread before it had begun, I''m not sure why.

  

 

[/quote]

Yep got it Mystic. Its on p.17 if anyone`s interested. On p.9 it has a "Profit/(loss) on player trading" as a profit of £6.1million but that is obviously before taking into account the money spent-so not really a profit at all...... Over £3million is still a sizeable sum when you consider the parachute payments and the players sold since.

Will have to watch out for those similar user names. I think there`s been 4 versions of Mr.Carrow on here which can be a tad annoying. Come back Cambridge Canary, your opinion would be appreciated.

[Putney Canary 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

The figures quoted in the accounts are not assumptions Putney, they are facts. And that is what i base my opinion on. I also base it on the events of the last few seasons when we HAVE made a large profit in the transfer market whilst the squad has been weak and struggling and we have been benefiting from £7.1million per season parachute payments. Those payments have now ended but we have gained a £2million loan which according to the club means we are not forced to sell anyone, so the balance of probability would so far indicate that we won`t have much leeway in the transfer market and that we will make a big profit on Earnshaw and spend around half of it-as we did with Ashton, Francis, Green etc. There are hopes and rumours that there may be more to the new investment than meets the eye but i base my opinion on reality, not hopes and rumours.

I don`t know where you get the information that we pay wages above the average but the recent Deloitte and Touche report stated that Championship clubs pay an average of 72% of turnover on overall wages. Our turnover last year was about £25million and overall wages about £15million which puts us below the average. Its all in the accounts if you want to check. If you don`t have them i can give you a rundown and maybe we can have a more informed debate.

[/quote]I remember seeing figures that average total Championship wages bill (two seasons ago if I remember right) were 4.1m, ours was more than double that. An example of were we are both quoting stats without FULLY understanding the actual impact on the accounts. In the promotion season wasn''t our wage bill nearer 92%? We need to look at figures over time, and also remember that a financial year snapshot does not mirror the football season reality. Also remember that I''m not trying to make out that our board are being extravagent on wages, just that I don''t believe we are being as tight as some would make out.As for the investment, yes it is based on hopes and rumours, and also the thought that our board wouldn''t have ''sold'' two seats on the board for 2m only. That I would be angry about.CJF We talked about Derby on another thread. They are an example of a club that got large local investment and made it work. Well done to their board and the whole club. Nobody is trying to deny this or hide from it.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Putney Canary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

The figures quoted in the accounts are not assumptions Putney, they are facts. And that is what i base my opinion on. I also base it on the events of the last few seasons when we HAVE made a large profit in the transfer market whilst the squad has been weak and struggling and we have been benefiting from £7.1million per season parachute payments. Those payments have now ended but we have gained a £2million loan which according to the club means we are not forced to sell anyone, so the balance of probability would so far indicate that we won`t have much leeway in the transfer market and that we will make a big profit on Earnshaw and spend around half of it-as we did with Ashton, Francis, Green etc. There are hopes and rumours that there may be more to the new investment than meets the eye but i base my opinion on reality, not hopes and rumours.

I don`t know where you get the information that we pay wages above the average but the recent Deloitte and Touche report stated that Championship clubs pay an average of 72% of turnover on overall wages. Our turnover last year was about £25million and overall wages about £15million which puts us below the average. Its all in the accounts if you want to check. If you don`t have them i can give you a rundown and maybe we can have a more informed debate.

[/quote]
I remember seeing figures that average total Championship wages bill (two seasons ago if I remember right) were 4.1m, ours was more than double that. An example of were we are both quoting stats without FULLY understanding the actual impact on the accounts. In the promotion season wasn''t our wage bill nearer 92%? We need to look at figures over time, and also remember that a financial year snapshot does not mirror the football season reality. Also remember that I''m not trying to make out that our board are being extravagent on wages, just that I don''t believe we are being as tight as some would make out.

As for the investment, yes it is based on hopes and rumours, and also the thought that our board wouldn''t have ''sold'' two seats on the board for 2m only. That I would be angry about.

CJF We talked about Derby on another thread. They are an example of a club that got large local investment and made it work. Well done to their board and the whole club. Nobody is trying to deny this or hide from it.
[/quote]

Putney here are the actual figures for players wages as a percentage of turnover for the six years 2000/1 to 2005/6 (from page 9 of 2006 Annual Report):

Year                           Turnover                        Players Wages                  Percentage*

2000/1                        9,391,000                        4,794,000                              51.0%

2001/2                        15,358,000                      5,247,000                              34.2%

2002/3                        12,965,000                      5,551,000                              42.8%

2003/4                        13,928,000                      7,294,000                              52.4%

2004/5                        37,425,000                    10,825,000                              28.9%

2005/6                        24,737,000                     9,025,000                               36.5%

* percentage worked out by me using a calculator - wages divided by turnover x 100

 

[Putney Canary 0]

Mystic - I don''t have time right now to go back and check, but I remember seeing a discussion on here ages ago, questioning if the board had been reckless that season because our wages were so high. It was decided that we had a reduced income due to the lower capacity at the time. The whole discussion might have been based on rubbish, but at the weekend I will go back and check (as you have gone to the effort of finding the stats you quoted). I will also check back on the figures for average championship spend over the same time as that seems to be another bone of contention.We must also remember that the average figures are skewed by some clubs spending over 100% of their turnover on wages, most clubs are running at an operating loss, and we have a higher debt than average (by quite some margin).I''ll come back at the weekend.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Putney Canary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

The figures quoted in the accounts are not assumptions Putney, they are facts. And that is what i base my opinion on. I also base it on the events of the last few seasons when we HAVE made a large profit in the transfer market whilst the squad has been weak and struggling and we have been benefiting from £7.1million per season parachute payments. Those payments have now ended but we have gained a £2million loan which according to the club means we are not forced to sell anyone, so the balance of probability would so far indicate that we won`t have much leeway in the transfer market and that we will make a big profit on Earnshaw and spend around half of it-as we did with Ashton, Francis, Green etc. There are hopes and rumours that there may be more to the new investment than meets the eye but i base my opinion on reality, not hopes and rumours.

I don`t know where you get the information that we pay wages above the average but the recent Deloitte and Touche report stated that Championship clubs pay an average of 72% of turnover on overall wages. Our turnover last year was about £25million and overall wages about £15million which puts us below the average. Its all in the accounts if you want to check. If you don`t have them i can give you a rundown and maybe we can have a more informed debate.

[/quote]
I remember seeing figures that average total Championship wages bill (two seasons ago if I remember right) were 4.1m, ours was more than double that. An example of were we are both quoting stats without FULLY understanding the actual impact on the accounts. In the promotion season wasn''t our wage bill nearer 92%? We need to look at figures over time, and also remember that a financial year snapshot does not mirror the football season reality. Also remember that I''m not trying to make out that our board are being extravagent on wages, just that I don''t believe we are being as tight as some would make out.

As for the investment, yes it is based on hopes and rumours, and also the thought that our board wouldn''t have ''sold'' two seats on the board for 2m only. That I would be angry about.

CJF We talked about Derby on another thread. They are an example of a club that got large local investment and made it work. Well done to their board and the whole club. Nobody is trying to deny this or hide from it.
[/quote]

The wage percentage figure i quoted was printed in the EDP about 2 weeks ago in relation to the latest Delloite and Touche report and i jotted down some of the figures. Another figure is that total wages for all Championship clubs were £228million. You might still be able to get hold of it but i haven`t seen it online. Relying on memory, i have read several articles over the last few years decrying that players wages on average take up over 50% of clubs turnover-but i wouldn`t put that forward as evidence. Ours are nowhere near that. I`m sorry but the idea that we pay player wages above average as a percentage of turnover is a myth, but of course everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

As for the Turners, my understanding is that Skipper was free to sell his shares to whoever he wanted and that the number of shares in question allows the purchaser a place on the board whether the other board members like it or not. But personally i don`t think enough is yet known on this issue to form an opinion.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Putney Canary"]Mystic - I don''t have time right now to go back and check, but I remember seeing a discussion on here ages ago, questioning if the board had been reckless that season because our wages were so high. It was decided that we had a reduced income due to the lower capacity at the time. The whole discussion might have been based on rubbish, but at the weekend I will go back and check (as you have gone to the effort of finding the stats you quoted). I will also check back on the figures for average championship spend over the same time as that seems to be another bone of contention.

We must also remember that the average figures are skewed by some clubs spending over 100% of their turnover on wages, most clubs are running at an operating loss, and we have a higher debt than average (by quite some margin).

I''ll come back at the weekend.
[/quote]

Cheers Putney.  You''re probably right about the increase in 2003/4 being due to the drop in income caused while the Jarrold was being built.  The same applies to the previous season I believe, income reduced due to the collapse of ITV Digital. 

I agree that an "average" can be misleading, what we really need is actual figures for the other clubs in the Championship, ie. our competitors.  I don''t know if that information is available, or where to find it.

As you know I''m not a fan of the way this club is being run, but even I was shocked at the figure for the Prem season.  What a sorry sight.  I can understand them not wanting to overcommit in case we came straight back down (although that''s what the parachute money is meant for, isn''t it?), but with parsimony on that scale we never stood a chance.  The fact that we were still in contention on the last day of the season is little short of a miracle, a worthy achievement in more ways than one . . .