Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mighty Green and Yellow

Re: Doomcaster?

Recommended Posts

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Nothing to say about the article Mello ?  Or would that require you to leave your keyboard autopilot mode ?
[/quote]

How about you, Badger or one of the other drones enlighten us as to Readings debt and terms of repayment, wage bill, cost and details of the stadium costs mentioned in the article and address and analyse the large squad and massive reduction in season-ticket sales this season and its impact?

Then, the article may actually have some relevance to our club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Fellas"][quote user="WEEN_NASTY"]

Just you relax, I know what''s best for you!

[/quote]

That picture is soul destroying.
[/quote]

And, the sole subject - who could be destroying the soul of the club......

[/quote]

The resemblance to Neil Cluckcaster is scary....except for the red beak and stupid grin.

Share this post


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

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Nothing to say about the article Mello ?  Or would that require you to leave your keyboard autopilot mode ?
[/quote]

How about you, Badger or one of the other drones enlighten us as to Readings debt and terms of repayment, wage bill, cost and details of the stadium costs mentioned in the article and address and analyse the large squad and massive reduction in season-ticket sales this season and its impact?

Then, the article may actually have some relevance to our club.

[/quote]

You''ve got to be kidding Mr. Carrow! You are, right? You have been droning on the same subject almost without taking a breath for about three years now. I''ve got a better suggestion than yours. Why don''t you invite Madejski and Delia to lunch. I''d give you large odds they have far more in common with each other in their thought process than anything they would find in common with your thinking. Do you disagree? Then you can tell us all what has and has not got relevance to our club.

Share this post


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

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Nothing to say about the article Mello ?  Or would that require you to leave your keyboard autopilot mode ?
[/quote]

How about you, Badger or one of the other drones enlighten us as to Readings debt and terms of repayment, wage bill, cost and details of the stadium costs mentioned in the article and address and analyse the large squad and massive reduction in season-ticket sales this season and its impact?

Then, the article may actually have some relevance to our club.

[/quote]

I don''t know. But if you can''t see that this has relevance, I''d be wasting my time finding out.

 

Share this post


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

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Nothing to say about the article Mello ?  Or would that require you to leave your keyboard autopilot mode ?[/quote]

How about you, Badger or one of the other drones enlighten us as to Readings debt and terms of repayment, wage bill, cost and details of the stadium costs mentioned in the article and address and analyse the large squad and massive reduction in season-ticket sales this season and its impact?

Then, the article may actually have some relevance to our club.

[/quote]

 I''d give you large odds they have far more in common with each other in their thought process than anything they would find in common with your thinking. Do you disagree? 

[/quote]I agree Yankee.They both employ a vast number of people in a non footballing capacity then complain that the wage bill is too high. I notice Mr Madjeskis Reading employs 435 people compared to the 436 employed by Man Utd. and Chelsea combined! Little wonder he''s grumbling when he has to find the same number of wage packets as this Countries two most succesful Clubs put together. We as a club employ more people than Chelsea, double the staff of a half dozen years ago and though it''s nice in a "putting back into the community" sort of way it cannot possibly be good business acumen, I defy anyone to explain to me what revenue source has appeared in the last six years to cover or indeed justify the extra pay packets. I suspect that what Delia and Madjeski have in common is that they are both Empire builders who measure their power and success solely by the number of employees they accrue and not by their achievments. They also both seem to get confused betwen the ''player wage bill'' and the ''overall wage bill'' and blame "player wages" when the bigger problem is obviously the sheer number of non-player wages draining the Clubs finances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The following Clubs all have fewer employees than Norwich City, all but one or two have larger and better (read more expensive) playing squads than Norwich City and all are either benefitting from being in the Premiership or are receiving the bonus Parachute payments this year.BirminghamBoltonChelseaHullMan CityMiddlesboroughSheff Utd.StokeWest BromWiganDerbyWatfordMaybe some belt tightening in the non footballing staff the last two or three years might have been more prudent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Fellas"][quote user="WEEN_NASTY"]

Just you relax, I know what''s best for you!

[/quote]

That picture is soul destroying.
[/quote]

And, the sole subject - who could be destroying the soul of the club......

[/quote]

The resemblance to Neil Cluckcaster is scary....except for the red beak and stupid grin.

[/quote]

They both tend to talk b0//ocks too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



"I agree Yankee.

They both employ a vast number of people in a non footballing capacity then complain that the wage bill is too high. I notice Mr Madjeskis Reading employs 435 people compared to the 436 employed by Man Utd. and Chelsea combined!
 
Little wonder he''s grumbling when he has to find the same number of wage packets as this Countries two most succesful Clubs put together. We as a club employ more people than Chelsea, double the staff of a half dozen years ago and though it''s nice in a "putting back into the community" sort of way it cannot possibly be good business acumen, I defy anyone to explain to me what revenue source has appeared in the last six years to cover or indeed justify the extra pay packets.
I suspect that what Delia and Madjeski have in common is that they are both Empire builders who measure their power and success solely by the number of employees they accrue and not by their achievments. They also both seem to get confused betwen the ''player wage bill'' and the ''overall wage bill'' and blame "player wages" when the bigger problem is obviously the sheer number of non-player wages draining the Clubs finances."
 

 

Good to see some people can be bothered to do some research to back their opinions up [Y].

Now your turn YC, Badger or blah, address and analyse the points raised in my post and put some meat on the bones of your argument instead of trying to compare apples with oranges and basing your argument on someone elses blog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fantastic posts Roedy Can''t Fail. Funny how nobody''s confident enough to challenge your arguments here? Surely it''s not prudent to employ more staff than Chelsea? Or the policy only prudence when they say so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Roedy Cant Fail"]


I agree Yankee.

They both employ a vast number of people in a non footballing capacity then complain that the wage bill is too high. I notice Mr Madjeskis Reading employs 435 people compared to the 436 employed by Man Utd. and Chelsea combined!
 
Little wonder he''s grumbling when he has to find the same number of wage packets as this Countries two most succesful Clubs put together. We as a club employ more people than Chelsea, double the staff of a half dozen years ago and though it''s nice in a "putting back into the community" sort of way it cannot possibly be good business acumen, I defy anyone to explain to me what revenue source has appeared in the last six years to cover or indeed justify the extra pay packets.
I suspect that what Delia and Madjeski have in common is that they are both Empire builders who measure their power and success solely by the number of employees they accrue and not by their achievments. They also both seem to get confused betwen the ''player wage bill'' and the ''overall wage bill'' and blame "player wages" when the bigger problem is obviously the sheer number of non-player wages draining the Clubs finances.
 
[/quote]

This is quite tinteresting stuff Roedy - do you have a link so that I can look at this in more detail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]They both employ a vast number of people in a non footballing capacity then complain that the wage bill is too high. I notice Mr Madjeskis Reading employs 435 people compared to the 436 employed by Man Utd. and Chelsea combined![/quote]

I don''t claim to know what all those non-footballing staff are doing at Reading, but I''d imagine it''s similar to what NCFC''s staff do - reduce the reliance of the club upon TV money.  If you have profit-making businesses within the overall business then you generate cash-flow for the playing side.  Surely it''s that simple isn''t it ?  Yet again Roedy & Mr Carrow, one fact taken out of the context of the overall business model to win an argument, you never give a full picture.  Is it a coincidence that Reading, like us, were affected by the collapse of ITV Digital ?  And that they''ve tried "old-school" business methods to make a go of creating a club that can stand on its'' own two feet, instead of the money-pits at Wolves and Palace ?  Madejski made his money through Auto Trader - both him and MWJ are self-made men, who have built businesses as vehicles for profit, this is their strength.  The chances are that none of these 435 non-footballing staff employed by Reading would take home anything near the salary of a Reading reserve player.

You can attempt to distract from the main issue of the article all you like, but Madejski is right - if you can control player wages, then you have half a chance of running a sustainable game, so that we don''t have a club going under every 3 months or so, you know, like the last 15 years.  But the FA have been too toothless in the past to try to tackle this issue, they''ve only recently started getting a little tougher on clubs that go into administration, which has to be the first step towards getting player wages back into line.  Now that Barwick is on his way out, maybe someone with the personality to make a changes at the top will be able to do something about spiralling player wages, but I''m not holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birmingham - David Sullivans'' Money Pit, too early to say if they''ll do better than us
Bolton - Premership status since 2001, hence huge tv money.
Chelsea - Roman Abramovich''s Money Pit
Man City - Thaksin Shiniwatra''s Money Pit
Middlesborough - Steve Gibsons'' Money Pit / Premiership money 
Stoke - An icelandic consortiums'' money pit
 
Wigan - Dave Whelans'' Money Pit

Derby - Bought for 50 million last year by a massive american entertainment group, yet to win a match since 2006.
Watford - you''re joking right ?  seriously on the ropes, if their shareholders can sell they will, and unless someone with serious money comes in, they''re a favourite for relegation.

Of the list you made, I''d say that 3 of them are doing better than us "on merit"

Hull - Ok, Ok, They''re better than us, I blame Robert Chase for not signing Dean Windass.
West Brom - OK OK they''re better than us, I blame Peter Grant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]

Of the list you made, I''d say that 3 of them are doing better than us "on merit"

Hull - Ok, Ok, They''re better than us, I blame Robert Chase for not signing Dean Windass.
West Brom - OK OK they''re better than us, I blame Peter Grant.[/quote]

Er, make that 2. [:)]

Share this post


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

Of the list you made, I''d say that 3 of them are doing better than us "on merit"

Hull - Ok, Ok, They''re better than us, I blame Robert Chase for not signing Dean Windass.
West Brom - OK OK they''re better than us, I blame Peter Grant.[/quote]

Er, make that 2. [:)]

[/quote]

Sheff.Utd?  Supporters of other clubs would probably label us "Delias money pit".  And i hardly think Stoke bought promotion a la Fulham a few years back, they simply spent a bit of money when it was obvious it would increase their chances of promotion ie. Shawcross.

Share this post


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

Of the list you made, I''d say that 3 of them are doing better than us "on merit"

Hull - Ok, Ok, They''re better than us, I blame Robert Chase for not signing Dean Windass.
West Brom - OK OK they''re better than us, I blame Peter Grant.[/quote]

Er, make that 2. [:)]

[/quote]

Sheff.Utd?  Supporters of other clubs would probably label us "Delias money pit".  And i hardly think Stoke bought promotion a la Fulham a few years back, they simply spent a bit of money when it was obvious it would increase their chances of promotion ie. Shawcross.

[/quote]

Sheff Utd have spent a lot of money on players, and were rewarded with a mid-table finish.  Sharp cost them 2 million + and scored 4 goals last season.  I''d say they have a team the equal of ours.  Stoke, I grant you, did what we did when we got promoted - saw an opportunity and took it, hence Shawcross and other loans / purchases, even Ameobi at the end of the season.  But a new stadium doesn''t come cheap, hence money pit.

So out of Roedys'' list, we agree on 3 then ? [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway Mr C - back to player wages. Takingthe current footballing climate into consideration - do you consider that players are inadequately rewarded for their jobs ?  Or do you feel, like me, that player wages are too high ?

Share this post


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



"I agree Yankee.

They both employ a vast number of people in a non footballing capacity then complain that the wage bill is too high. I notice Mr Madjeskis Reading employs 435 people compared to the 436 employed by Man Utd. and Chelsea combined!
 
Little wonder he''s grumbling when he has to find the same number of wage packets as this Countries two most succesful Clubs put together. We as a club employ more people than Chelsea, double the staff of a half dozen years ago and though it''s nice in a "putting back into the community" sort of way it cannot possibly be good business acumen, I defy anyone to explain to me what revenue source has appeared in the last six years to cover or indeed justify the extra pay packets.
I suspect that what Delia and Madjeski have in common is that they are both Empire builders who measure their power and success solely by the number of employees they accrue and not by their achievments. They also both seem to get confused betwen the ''player wage bill'' and the ''overall wage bill'' and blame "player wages" when the bigger problem is obviously the sheer number of non-player wages draining the Clubs finances."
 

 

Good to see some people can be bothered to do some research to back their opinions up [Y].

Now your turn YC, Badger or blah, address and analyse the points raised in my post and put some meat on the bones of your argument instead of trying to compare apples with oranges and basing your argument on someone elses blog.

[/quote]

Do you honestly believe that we employ more people than Chelsea Mr Carrow [:^)]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to know why Majeski is narked about player wages ?

From http://www.footballeconomy.com/stats2/eng_reading.htm

Year

Turnover

Pre-tax profit

Wages / Turnover ratio (%)

Employees

2006/07

17.768

-6.465

80.2

435

2004/05

15.118

-4.554

73.2

438

Looks to me like they''ve spent an extra £ 3 million on wages in 06/07 than they did in 04/05, with roughly the same amount of employees, and ended up getting relegated as a result.  The site didn''t have 05 / 06 though, which strikes me as a little odd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Facts is facts.

Financial Overview - Chelsea

Year
Turnover
Pre-tax profit
Wages / Turnover ratio (%)
Employees

2005/06

130.410

-78.297

79.5

160

2004/05

122.657

-132.854

78.6

133

2003/04

118.032

-75.895

 

124

2002/03

75.136

-15.277

 

105

2001/02

75.248

-10.477

63.5

 

2000/01

51.326

-5.962

84.7

 

1999/00

59.246

2.311

68.6

 

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

1994/95

13.500

3.395

44.4

88

1993/94

10.900

-1.362

 

88

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Overview -  Norwich

Year
Turnover
Pre-tax profit
Wages / Turnover ratio (%)
Employees

2006/07

23.771

0.627

 

208

2005/06

24.116

3.065

62.1

214

2004/05

37.426

9.166

45.2

201

2003/04

13.928

-3.265

 

185

2002/03

12.965

-4.681

77.1

170

2001/02

15.271

0.440

54.2

167

2000/01

9.391

0.976

86.4

162

1999/00

7.696

-0.754

88.7

143

1998/99

6.236

-2.966

91.6

109

1997/98

6.910

0.600

65.5

96

1996/97

6.271

-1.176

61.1

90

1995/96

6.530

0.224

 

106

1994/95

7.855

1.111

 

 

1993/94

9.477

0.863

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Anyway Mr C - back to player wages. Takingthe current footballing climate into consideration - do you consider that players are inadequately rewarded for their jobs ?  Or do you feel, like me, that player wages are too high ?[/quote]

I think it`s stating the obvious blah, but it`s the same for most clubs in our league and most of them don`t get our gates and haven`t had parachute payments or the multi-millions in player sales we have.  The wages situation at Reading looks far more drastic than ours so there is no comparison.

What`s the solution, go part-time?  For goodness sake, no-one suggest it to Doncaster please.....[:O] [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting that we are constantly told we are a "loss-making Championship club" yet we have actually made a profit in 9 out of the last 14 years.......[^o)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]I think it`s stating the obvious blah, but it`s the same for most clubs in our league and most of them don`t get our gates and haven`t had parachute payments or the multi-millions in player sales we have. [/quote]

Most of them haven''t replaced a stand at great cost either.  Or had the building of that stand delayed for a year, was it, by archaeologists ?  I blame Tim Robinson myself.

Share this post


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

[quote]I think it`s stating the obvious blah, but it`s the same for most clubs in our league and most of them don`t get our gates and haven`t had parachute payments or the multi-millions in player sales we have. [/quote]

Most of them haven''t replaced a stand at great cost either.  Or had the building of that stand delayed for a year, was it, by archaeologists ?  I blame Tim Robinson myself.

[/quote]

 

Arse.  That should be Tony Robinson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[img]http://mikesblog.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/majortoht.jpg[/img]

Look at both their faces Very carefully.... i swear they are the same person!

jas :)

Share this post


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

[quote]They both employ a vast number of people in a non footballing capacity then complain that the wage bill is too high. I notice Mr Madjeskis Reading employs 435 people compared to the 436 employed by Man Utd. and Chelsea combined![/quote]

I don''t claim to know what all those non-footballing staff are doing at Reading, but I''d imagine it''s similar to what NCFC''s staff do - reduce the reliance of the club upon TV money.  If you have profit-making businesses within the overall business then you generate cash-flow for the playing side.  Surely it''s that simple isn''t it ?  Yet again Roedy & Mr Carrow, one fact taken out of the context of the overall business model to win an argument, you never give a full picture.

[/quote]

Talking about full picture, how are you so sure that these off-field investments actually put money into the transfer kitty?

The figures in the accounts shows a surplus of income over expenditure, but have the cost of salaries of the catering staff (the non-football staff that have doubled the staff levels) been taken into account? We could be actually running at a loss. Since:

1. The accounts do not show a full breakdown of non-football profit and loss

2. Doncaster has never said how much this activity has contributed to the transfer funds. He would have spun it for all it''s worth.

I suspect that nothing has been contributed by off-field activities

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

You can attempt to distract from the main issue of the article all you like, but Madejski is right - if you can control player wages, then you have half a chance of running a sustainable game, so that we don''t have a club going under every 3 months or so, you know, like the last 15 years.  But the FA have been too toothless in the past to try to tackle this issue, they''ve only recently started getting a little tougher on clubs that go into administration, which has to be the first step towards getting player wages back into line.  Now that Barwick is on his way out, maybe someone with the personality to make a changes at the top will be able to do something about spiralling player wages, but I''m not holding my breath.

[/quote]You are right to put the blame at the feet of the FA. I wish Madejski would the same instead of blaming the players who signed the contracts that he gave them. Nothing will change at the FA. They created the Prem monster to have a couple of teams who could compete with the best in Europe. They have been spectacularly successful in acheiving their goals, with four top European sides in the English Prem. That they have almost destroyed the rest of English football in the process is not a concern, as the likes of NCFC and similar clubs will never have appeared on a FA powerpoint slide.While everybody blames the players who are only doing what everybody in the same situation would do, the real culprits get off scot free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]

Talking about full picture, how are you so sure that these off-field investments actually put money into the transfer kitty?[/quote]

I struggle to understand why anyone would go to all the bother of creating additional revenue streams if those streams costs more to run than they make.  It has been suggested that the catering side of the operation made 500k last year.  Surely the travel agents makes money ?  And as for renting out offices, once you''ve built the offices, what other costs are there ?  Maintainance ?  If they haven''t contributed much yet, then they will in the future.

I agree that the accounts should break the profit / loss of the business into sub-businesses where possible, in the interests of transparency if nothing else.  Not being an accountant though, I have no idea if this is feasible or desriable though.  

Share this post


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

Surely common sense would tell you Chelsea employ more people than "Delia''s Little Ole Norwich" [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Roedy and Mr Carrow, I can''t get my head around this at all. I don''t see where it''s possible that we employ more people than Chelsea IF we are comparing like for like [:^)]

 

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...