Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mr.Carrow

Wages-don`t be mislead......

Recommended Posts

Quote from N.Doncaster`s "Report of the chief executive" (P.4 06/07 annual report).

"The costs of terminating these contracts are all included within the wage bill of £14.4million, which has reduced from £15.4million the previous season. Given that the season we were promoted (03/04) our wage bill was just £10.7million, the club`s huge investment in its playing squad over the past two years (up by 35%) is clearly apparent."

What he strangely fails to make clear is that the £14.4million figure is the clubs overall wage bill and that the player wage part of that actually decreased by £1.6million to £7.4million.

He also neglects to mention that whilst overall (not player) wages have indeed increased by 35% since our promotion season, our income has increased by some 80% from £13.9million to £23.8million, meaning that as a percentage of turnover player wages have actually been drastically cut from 52% (P.4 03/04 annual report) to 31%. Simply put, our player wages last year were about £1million higher than the promotion season yet overall income was £10million higher. Ambition? Hilarious. These people are assuming you are idiots.

If anyone was in any doubt as to our esteemed board`s ability to spin almost anything to suit their own ends, doubt no more.

Share this post


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

Quote from N.Doncaster`s "Report of the chief executive" (P.4 06/07 annual report).

"The costs of terminating these contracts are all included within the wage bill of £14.4million, which has reduced from £15.4million the previous season. Given that the season we were promoted (03/04) our wage bill was just £10.7million, the club`s huge investment in its playing squad over the past two years (up by 35%) is clearly apparent."

What he strangely fails to make clear is that the £14.4million figure is the clubs overall wage bill and that the player wage part of that actually decreased by £1.6million to £7.4million.

He also neglects to mention that whilst overall (not player) wages have indeed increased by 35% since our promotion season, our income has increased by some 80% from £13.9million to £23.8million, meaning that as a percentage of turnover player wages have actually been drastically cut from 52% (P.4 03/04 annual report) to 31%. Simply put, our player wages last year were about £1million higher than the promotion season yet overall income was £10million higher. Ambition? Hilarious. These people are assuming you are idiots.

If anyone was in any doubt as to our esteemed board`s ability to spin almost anything to suit their own ends, doubt no more.

[/quote]

Yep...like I said earlier...accounts are just a fairytale concocted to hide the reality...but in the case of NCFC it is aimed purely at fertilising their turnips.

 

Share this post


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

Quote from N.Doncaster`s "Report of the chief executive" (P.4 06/07 annual report).

"The costs of terminating these contracts are all included within the wage bill of £14.4million, which has reduced from £15.4million the previous season. Given that the season we were promoted (03/04) our wage bill was just £10.7million, the club`s huge investment in its playing squad over the past two years (up by 35%) is clearly apparent."

What he strangely fails to make clear is that the £14.4million figure is the clubs overall wage bill and that the player wage part of that actually decreased by £1.6million to £7.4million.

He also neglects to mention that whilst overall (not player) wages have indeed increased by 35% since our promotion season, our income has increased by some 80% from £13.9million to £23.8million, meaning that as a percentage of turnover player wages have actually been drastically cut from 52% (P.4 03/04 annual report) to 31%. Simply put, our player wages last year were about £1million higher than the promotion season yet overall income was £10million higher. Ambition? Hilarious. These people are assuming you are idiots.

If anyone was in any doubt as to our esteemed board`s ability to spin almost anything to suit their own ends, doubt no more.

[/quote]

Yep...like I said earlier...accounts are just a fairytale concocted to hide the reality...but in the case of NCFC it is aimed purely at fertilising their turnips.

 

[/quote]Cluck I think you''ll find it is not only a legal requirement for all limited companies to publish accounts but also are used to give all business easy to read, all in one place, sets of financial data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]What he strangely fails to make clear is that the £14.4million figure is the clubs overall wage bill and that the player wage part of that actually decreased by £1.6million to £7.4million.[/quote]So nearly 49%, or £7m, of the wage bill is for non-players? That seems amazing. How much of the 51% is termination costs (in itself a reflection on the Board, you could say), how much is for directly football-related employees, and is it possible to find a breakdown anywhere? It seems that there are genuine questions to be asked based on these accounts, not on personal antagonisms, so why don''t we make a list in a new thread and present them to Neil Doncaster, directly or via NCISA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. I''ll start.

Why the high non-playing staff wages? Should this not be a target for ensuring sufficient money is targetted into the football side of the business.

Why a £1.3m loan (I''m going on the basis of someone else''s discovery) for office improvements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we have high non-football wages but as pointed out elsewhere our non-football income is a lot higher than other clubs. As in any business you have to look at the income and wages together otherewise you are only looking at half of the picture. It appears that we are not only covering our overheads but also generating more income and profit than other clubs from non-football activity. This suggests that actually the board are actually performing better than other clubs and should be congratulated in respect of their commercial management rather than being called idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]It appears that we are not only covering our overheads but also generating more income and profit than other clubs from non-football activity.[/quote]

I think that making money from non-footballing activity is a good thing, provided it can be demonstrated that the businesses within the business are standing on their own feet, and making a profit, all well and good.  Unlike some on this board, I also believe that at some point in the future, some of the profits from these businesses will come trickling back into the team, it''s just a matter of when.

What worries me is that in the 06/07 season we spent 1.6 million less on player wages than the Championship average for 05/06 - this being after the new TV deals came in, which no doubt resulted in a rise in player wages as new contracts started.  Surely we need to be able to compete financially in order to attract the best available players, and this comparison suggests that we are not.

What also worries me is that Neil Doncaster is attempting to use the overall (playing and non-playing) wages increase as an example of player wage inflation, when in fact we are spending less on player wages than in previous seasons, and a good deal less than our direct competitors.  If he was speaking in public, I''d consider it an oversight, but in the company accounts ?

 

Share this post


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

Yes we have high non-football wages but as pointed out elsewhere our non-football income is a lot higher than other clubs. As in any business you have to look at the income and wages together otherewise you are only looking at half of the picture. It appears that we are not only covering our overheads but also generating more income and profit than other clubs from non-football activity. This suggests that actually the board are actually performing better than other clubs and should be congratulated in respect of their commercial management rather than being called idiots.

[/quote] 

"Sorry the football you pay £500 a season for is awful but on the bright side the clubs property porfolio is coming along very nicely and "Delia''s" is is always busy.  You''ll also be pleased to know that Neil Doncaster will have a fully refurbished office come January.  You can rest assured that he will be in comfort for those frantic evenings during the transfer window that he spends on the phone trying to sign players but just missing out on them."

We are well aware that we are not where we need to be in terms of league position but we hope you will take more than a little solice from the fact that we are top 6 club in terms of commercial income."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I am not happy with the on field performance which is obviously what really matters at the end of the day. I was just trying to add some objective balance rather than some of the irrational rants we see which merely prove that some posters understandably do not comprehend commerce and financial accounts rather than the board are making mistakes. For example the suggestions that our non-playing wages are too high depends on the income they are generating. The board don''t manage the team or play football but they are responsible for 1. running the commercial aspects of the business which helps finance the team and 2.they choose the manager. In respect of 1. the financial accounts indicate that commercially they have been more sucessfully than other clubs and that they are running the business sensibly from a financial perspective which contributes to the club''s potential. and therefore are doing ok. On 2. I think the jury on the choice of manager is still out.  Frustratingly given our attendances without parachute payments and cash injections from the investors financially we are a mid-table championship side. There are only a few winners in football and therefore there is a good chance that you will be disappointed. It does not therefore follow that the Board are incompetent as this would suggest that the majority of football club directors are incompetent. It is easy to criticise but the reality is their is no easy way out. I have never seen an easy solution on this board. New investors - yes but then where are they?. New manager - possibly but there is no affordable manager who we can all agree would be the messiah. I just get frustrated with the unsurpported and unrealistic abusive comments on here. That does not mean the board has not made mistakes but that is business and it is easy to be brilliant with hindsight.

Share this post


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

Yes we have high non-football wages but as pointed out elsewhere our non-football income is a lot higher than other clubs. As in any business you have to look at the income and wages together otherewise you are only looking at half of the picture. It appears that we are not only covering our overheads but also generating more income and profit than other clubs from non-football activity. This suggests that actually the board are actually performing better than other clubs and should be congratulated in respect of their commercial management rather than being called idiots.

[/quote]

I can`t really see the logic in that post T. The club only made a tiny profit after receiving "football related" income of £8.4million tv revenue (inc.£7.1million parachute payment) and a large overall profit in the transfer market. If anything this suggests that the off-pitch stuff is draining the club dry and having to be propped up by the football side rather than the other way around. All that extra revenue certainly didn`t go on the team did it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Carrow -  My thinking is if you go through the summary accounts on the other very helpful post then the non- football income is higher than the non-players wages. The non-player wages will include staff related to football activities and to commercial activities which indicates the commercial activites are profitable and making a contribution to financing the football side. On another post it suggests that are commercial income is higher than other clubs in the league. I''m just pointing out that non player wages are not necessarily a bad thing and it seems that they are giving rise to a positive contribution to the club which however big it is is a good thing. The board don''t manage the football team and don''t kick the ball. They do manage the finances and commercial aspects of the business which help the football side and here they appear to be doing a decent job. That does not mean that they are perfect or ultimately the club is achieving what really matters. It just means that some of the abuse they receive on here is unwarranted.

Share this post


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

Quote from N.Doncaster`s "Report of the chief executive" (P.4 06/07 annual report).

"The costs of terminating these contracts are all included within the wage bill of £14.4million, which has reduced from £15.4million the previous season. Given that the season we were promoted (03/04) our wage bill was just £10.7million, the club`s huge investment in its playing squad over the past two years (up by 35%) is clearly apparent."

What he strangely fails to make clear is that the £14.4million figure is the clubs overall wage bill and that the player wage part of that actually decreased by £1.6million to £7.4million.

He also neglects to mention that whilst overall (not player) wages have indeed increased by 35% since our promotion season, our income has increased by some 80% from £13.9million to £23.8million, meaning that as a percentage of turnover player wages have actually been drastically cut from 52% (P.4 03/04 annual report) to 31%. Simply put, our player wages last year were about £1million higher than the promotion season yet overall income was £10million higher. Ambition? Hilarious. These people are assuming you are idiots.

If anyone was in any doubt as to our esteemed board`s ability to spin almost anything to suit their own ends, doubt no more.

[/quote]

Yep...like I said earlier...accounts are just a fairytale concocted to hide the reality...but in the case of NCFC it is aimed purely at fertilising their turnips.

 

[/quote]

Cluck I think you''ll find it is not only a legal requirement for all limited companies to publish accounts but also are used to give all business easy to read, all in one place, sets of financial data
[/quote]

I produced accounts for my businesses for 23 consecutive years so I have a rough idea of what is involved.

In all they are designed to minimise tax payments and spin bad news so that it reads in a positive light for investors.  Done skillfully it works a treat....done badly it becomes transparent......

Trouble is for NCFC is that there is nowhere to hide anymore....and the team on the pitch shouts far louder than a whole volume of misleading statistics.

Share this post


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

Quote from N.Doncaster`s "Report of the chief executive" (P.4 06/07 annual report).

"The costs of terminating these contracts are all included within the wage bill of £14.4million, which has reduced from £15.4million the previous season. Given that the season we were promoted (03/04) our wage bill was just £10.7million, the club`s huge investment in its playing squad over the past two years (up by 35%) is clearly apparent."

What he strangely fails to make clear is that the £14.4million figure is the clubs overall wage bill and that the player wage part of that actually decreased by £1.6million to £7.4million.

He also neglects to mention that whilst overall (not player) wages have indeed increased by 35% since our promotion season, our income has increased by some 80% from £13.9million to £23.8million, meaning that as a percentage of turnover player wages have actually been drastically cut from 52% (P.4 03/04 annual report) to 31%. Simply put, our player wages last year were about £1million higher than the promotion season yet overall income was £10million higher. Ambition? Hilarious. These people are assuming you are idiots.

If anyone was in any doubt as to our esteemed board`s ability to spin almost anything to suit their own ends, doubt no more.

[/quote]

Yep...like I said earlier...accounts are just a fairytale concocted to hide the reality...but in the case of NCFC it is aimed purely at fertilising their turnips.

 

[/quote]Cluck I think you''ll find it is not only a legal requirement for all limited companies to publish accounts but also are used to give all business easy to read, all in one place, sets of financial data[/quote]

I produced accounts for my businesses for 23 consecutive years so I have a rough idea of what is involved.

In all they are designed to minimise tax payments and spin bad news so that it reads in a positive light for investors.  Done skillfully it works a treat....done badly it becomes transparent......

Trouble is for NCFC is that there is nowhere to hide anymore....and the team on the pitch shouts far louder than a whole volume of misleading statistics.

[/quote]Yes. It happens on all accounts, why is this account a fairytale then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

178k is not a lot for a CEO of a large company. I certainly would not change my job for that job for that money especially given some of the uninformed abuse that he takes. I understand the guy is also a lawyer so it may help reduce our legal costs. If anything I would be looking to invest more in a CEO with a million pound bonus if the club got to the premiership and stayed there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="shefcanary"]Also, is Mr D worth £178K a year?[/quote]

Apparently, someone thinks he is.......

I sincerely hope he doesn''t waste that amount on wasteful things......and that he buys his foodstuffs from M&S and not Aldi.....

Prudence at work, shouldn''t mean prudence away from it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neil D''s salary seems very high to me since in essence he is the Chief Operational Officer and doesn''t have the strategic role that a CEO would have. Also, his salary is roughly on a par with a university vice-chancellor who runs a £200m business, not one with a turnover that is tiny in comparison. Maybe this tells that the private sector entails more risk than a uni and he is rewarded for bearing some of that risk.... but I doubt it makes up for the high reward in proportion to turnover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]Mr Carrow -  My thinking is if you go through the summary accounts on the other very helpful post then the non- football income is higher than the non-players wages. The non-player wages will include staff related to football activities and to commercial activities which indicates the commercial activites are profitable and making a contribution to financing the football side. On another post it suggests that are commercial income is higher than other clubs in the league. I''m just pointing out that non player wages are not necessarily a bad thing and it seems that they are giving rise to a positive contribution to the club which however big it is is a good thing. The board don''t manage the football team and don''t kick the ball. They do manage the finances and commercial aspects of the business which help the football side and here they appear to be doing a decent job. That does not mean that they are perfect or ultimately the club is achieving what really matters. It just means that some of the abuse they receive on here is unwarranted.[/quote]

Well T, this is all getting quite involved and complicated. I can see the point you are trying to make, however, looking at the bigger picture the club very nearly made a loss despite despite £8.4million in tv revenue, very low player wages (31% of turnover), and a big profit on selling players. This indicates that there is a big problem somewhere and it isn`t on the "football side" of the business.

I note that the club have taken out a further £1.2million loan. To pay for a new centre back? Nope, to build new "office facilities". So thats yet more money thrown at fixed assets whilst the team struggles on the pitch. This is why people are angry and if the club don`t get back to focussing on the most important thing (you know, the thing which brought in all those extra millions the club have squandered....) then the abuse will get worse-and rightly so IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree that there is a problem and it is not straightforawrd. I review financial information for international corporate and private equity aquisitions and disposals. You can not see from the financial accounts exactly where the problem is as you would need to see an analysis of wages and operating expenses between football, catering, commercial and sundry activities i.e. you would have to see the management accounts. Accordingly, you can not say it is a non-football problem. Our recurring total wages are 82% of recurring income (ie excluding the 7m parachute payments) compared to the 72% total wage ratio contained in the deloitte report which does suggest that the overall wage bill is not sustainable.

Share this post


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

[quote user="T"]Mr Carrow -  My thinking is if you go through the summary accounts on the other very helpful post then the non- football income is higher than the non-players wages. The non-player wages will include staff related to football activities and to commercial activities which indicates the commercial activites are profitable and making a contribution to financing the football side. On another post it suggests that are commercial income is higher than other clubs in the league. I''m just pointing out that non player wages are not necessarily a bad thing and it seems that they are giving rise to a positive contribution to the club which however big it is is a good thing. The board don''t manage the football team and don''t kick the ball. They do manage the finances and commercial aspects of the business which help the football side and here they appear to be doing a decent job. That does not mean that they are perfect or ultimately the club is achieving what really matters. It just means that some of the abuse they receive on here is unwarranted.[/quote]

Well T, this is all getting quite involved and complicated. I can see the point you are trying to make, however, looking at the bigger picture the club very nearly made a loss despite despite £8.4million in tv revenue, very low player wages (31% of turnover), and a big profit on selling players. This indicates that there is a big problem somewhere and it isn`t on the "football side" of the business.

I note that the club have taken out a further £1.2million loan. To pay for a new centre back? Nope, to build new "office facilities". So thats yet more money thrown at fixed assets whilst the team struggles on the pitch. This is why people are angry and if the club don`t get back to focussing on the most important thing (you know, the thing which brought in all those extra millions the club have squandered....) then the abuse will get worse-and rightly so IMO.

[/quote]You are quite correct really. Something is wrong with the infastructure of the club at the moment and there seems to be black holes everywhere. I really don''t understand how we seem to have such a huge non-playing staff budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]

I totally agree that there is a problem and it is not straightforawrd. I review financial information for international corporate and private equity aquisitions and disposals. You can not see from the financial accounts exactly where the problem is as you would need to see an analysis of wages and operating expenses between football, catering, commercial and sundry activities i.e. you would have to see the management accounts. Accordingly, you can not say it is a non-football problem. Our recurring total wages are 82% of recurring income (ie excluding the 7m parachute payments) compared to the 72% total wage ratio contained in the deloitte report which does suggest that the overall wage bill is not sustainable.

[/quote]

As i understand it T the players are on "tiered" contracts which will be adjusted downwards upon the loss of parachute payments. I can`t prove this but i think if you delve into it you will find this is the case. As for the non-football staff,  i can`t say, but i think that if you bear in mind that player wages cost just £7.4million out of a wage bill of £14.4million then that is where the real problem lies. Player wages are only about £1million higher than in our promotion season when turnover was £10million lower at £14million. Granted, we made a substantial loss that season but we all know what the final reward was......

For the Chief Executive to try to claim that a high overall wage bill- in which player wages are below our competitors- is proof of "the club`s huge investment in it`s playing squad" is surely totally ridiculous and deliberately misleading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about they get paid for how well they play,would seem strange following their posh cars through mcdonalds drive through on the way home cos the way they are playing they would be earning less than the rest of us[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If our off field investments are making money then that has to be welcome surely. One could argue that if that profit is only ten pounds a year, then they are not worth doing though!

At the end of the day the only way this club makes serious money is by getting and staying in the Prem for two years or more. All other field activities that produce profit income are welcome, but small compared to the riches from Sky etc.

We need to invest in these other ventures, but not at the expense of the team is my opinion.

Share this post


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

If our off field investments are making money then that has to be welcome surely. One could argue that if that profit is only ten pounds a year, then they are not worth doing though!

At the end of the day the only way this club makes serious money is by getting and staying in the Prem for two years or more. All other field activities that produce profit income are welcome, but small compared to the riches from Sky etc.

We need to invest in these other ventures, but not at the expense of the team is my opinion.

[/quote]

We need to invest in these other ventures, but not at the expense of the team is my opinion.

Half the reason we''re in our ''prudent predicament'' is we over-invest in other ''ventures'' (not all financially frugal may I add) and the team has unfortunately taken a ''back seat''. I feel the board have become ''target fixated'' on alternative business channels - and ( have got themselves so deeply entrenched in the alternatives that aren''t quite as much a success that they''d assumed they''d be - and although not desperate, are trying to recover from them) forgetting  what really pulls the punters in from Norfolk and beyond. Folk don''t just come to Carra to enjoy a quality meal with a side-dish of ''so-so soccer'' (unless it''s a corporate ''face filling frenzy''), they actually come for the footy and to support the team. Believe me, I accept we have to have alternative sources of income and it would be foolish to hope like some smaller supported clubs that plod along without all the ''trimmings'' - that we could just get by on burger stalls, bovril and pies and average merchandise sales.

The way I see it, is that we will now be on a continuous loop of ''ho-hum'' fair to middlin'' football for the foreseeable future. It''s like we are gambling on a roulette wheel in a Vegas casino. We just keep putting our ''chips'' on red and black, because we know that although we are unlikely to gain a considerable profit by sitting on the fence - we are still playing for entertainment and amusement and unlikely to lose a lot.........and the cute cocktail waitress is still flittin'' around the table plying us with free drinks for the duration, just for the price of a small tip........

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...