Re: Doomcaster?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][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 [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Thems the stats nutty.  Even Man.U only have 276.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][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.  

[/quote]

The wage bill for the 06/07 season was £14m of which half was non-football wages.  If you strip out the £7.1m parachute bonus money then turnover was £16.7m so this gives an indication of what turnover is likely to be when the next set of accounts come out covering last season.  Unless there are drastic cuts then non-football wages could well take up nearly half our turnover.  I think the off-pitch stuff was planned to be profitable long-term (which is directly affected by performance on the pitch) but i don`t for a second think they are profitable now.

[blahblahblah 2]

All interesting stuff Mr C.  At least you''re not suggesting that they have tried to avoid profit off the pitch [:)].  As an aside, do you think that turnover per employee might be a useful performance measure ?  I had non-smokers fag break in front of my pc, and came up with this from that site that Roedy linked.  I don''t really understand accounts and the like, maybe you can tell me, does a high turnover per employee represent value for money ?

Team           Turnover       Emps   T/E
Birmingham   £ 40.1m        150 267333
Watford        £ 28.9m        118 244915
Charlton       £ 41.9m        227 184581

QPR             £ 6.49m         45  144222
Norwich        £ 23.77m       208 114278
Bristol C       £ 4.94m          44  112272
Hull             £ 9.5 m           88  107954
Soton          £ 20.50m         201 101990
Wolves        £ 23.8m          234 101709
Leicester      £ 20.15m        202 99752
Derby           £ 13.9m         172 80813
Plymouth      £ 7.73m          98  78877
Sheff Utd      £ 11.90m       167 71257
Sheff Wed     £ 12.23m       183 66830
Cardiff          £ 8.01m         120 66750
Them           £ 10.47m        171 61257
Burnley         £ 8.44m         142 59436
Stoke           £ 7.93m         134 59179
Reading        £ 17.76m       435 40845
Blackpool      £ 3.92m         105 37333

The figures are from the most recent year available, some 06 / 07, some 05 / 06.  Apologies for the formatting, it looked prettier in notepad...

If turnover per employee is a reasonable performance measure, then Roedy has a point about Madejski not getting value for his 435 employees.  We seem to be fairing rather better though.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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 [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Thems the stats nutty.  Even Man.U only have 276.

[/quote]

So do you believe we are comparing like for like? Have you ever been to these places? Maybe Chelsea Football Club could be a small part of a bigger plc run by Abramovich? I''m not saying these stats are wrong but something doesn''t add up to me. I can''t believe you don''t think that either [:O]

 

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Roedy Cant Fail"]Here''s the link.

Football Club Finances


[/quote]

Thanks.

[They need to EARN the right to play us 0]

The reason we employ more staff than other clubs is that, unlike the vast majority, we do not contract out catering and stewarding. I have no idea whether doing our own stewarding is cheaper than paying someone else to do it. It was claimed somewhere, I think possibly in one of Doncaster''s webchats, that last year catering generated £500,000 more profit for the club than if we had simply had a franchise in. I have no idea how to verify this, and I have a sneaking suspicion that he may not be comparing like with like.I presume that hotel employees must be included in the Reading employees total.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Roedy Cant Fail"]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.
Birmingham
Bolton
Chelsea
Hull
Man City
Middlesborough
Sheff Utd.
Stoke
West Brom
Wigan
Derby
Watford
Maybe some belt tightening in the non footballing staff the last two or three years might have been more prudent?
[/quote]

Thanks for the link Roedy. I was surprised when I read what you said and thanks for posting the link to the site. I have looked around and it does support what you are saying. However, I wonder if the following clauses/ notes taken from the site are of relevance and might help explain the surprising figures? (see below)

"Turnover and pre-tax profit figures are in millions and relate solely to Chelsea FC Ltd - not Chelsea Village plc."

"Please note figures prior to 2004/05 are for the plc (when they had far more employees) and later results are for Manchester United FC Ltd."

"** = Aston Villa FC Ltd - other figures refer to the plc"

The Football Club and the PLC appear as separate entities. (Presumably the former owned by the latter).

Is it possible that some of the employees which appear in our accounts, do not appear In Chelsea FC Ltd but in Chelsea Village PLC instead, likewise Man Utd FC Ltd and Man United PLC + same for Villa? So, for example, the Chief Executive at Chelsea, Man U and Villa appears in the PLC accounts, whilst the manager appears in the football club.

At Norwich, it could be that both Cheif Executive and manager appear under the football club heading making it appear that we employ more. This could be replicated in a number of other non footballing areas - catering etc.

Seems to make sense to me, but I''m not an accountant.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

It makes a bit more sense after Badger and Reg''s input. Surely these comparisons are totally meaningless and I can''t believe anyone taking them at face value [8-|]

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It makes a bit more sense after Badger and Reg''s input. Surely these comparisons are totally meaningless and I can''t believe anyone taking them at face value [8-|]

 

[/quote]I guess this includes me and my silly table aswell - d''oh ![:)]

[blahblahblah 2]

It''s gone awfully quiet on here nutty.  Do you think there might be a new thread along in a minute saying the same thing ?

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It makes a bit more sense after Badger and Reg''s input. Surely these comparisons are totally meaningless and I can''t believe anyone taking them at face value [8-|]

 

[/quote]Certainly is a real Pandoras box that site, there''s a supporting argument for anyone of any viewpoint in there somewhere and I''m sure that if we could actually make sense of it then the respective Clubs accountants would not be doing their job properly. I think it serves simply to highlight just what a grey area the "wage bill" actually is. The relevance would be that these are summaries drawn from the actual football clubs accounts, and are represented as a percentage of Club turnover (an indicator of size), that some choose to include extra curricular businesses within the football club A/C''s and some choose not to confuses the matter further.Thing is none of us are probably too bothered how many employees Man Utd, Chelsea Newcastle etc have since we''re all concerned about our Club. Although we are experts (in our own minds anyway) in the running of our Club, none of us know for sure who and what exactly is included by the NCFC accountants within that all encompassing "wage bill" that is cited from time to time by our Chief Exec amongst others. We don''t know if that includes the catering staff for the profit making restaurant or not. We don''t know if it includes any permanent employees attached to the land deal(s) or office rentals or whether they are accounted seperately, are the Stewards counted in and are they full time or part time, point of sale staff, matchday staff, bar men (and ladies), cleaners and maintenance staff in or out, full or part time nobody really knows. All we do know for sure is that 10 years ago we put eleven players on the pitch once or twice a week for 40 weeks of the year and ran the Club and Colney on a total staff of around half the numbers it takes to do the same thing now. The 160 or so non playing staff account for approx 30% of the overall club wage bill, without differentiating between different revenue streams in the accounts it is impossible to see where the value (if any) lies in all the extra staff. I can''t see that a restaurant and an office suite could possibly generate enough revenue to justify one hundred full time jobs. In my opinion if by employing say 50 staff we create a surplus after all outgoings are met of a single pound per annum then that is good business since without those staff we would not have that pound. If we have to take money from another part of the business to subsidise those same staff to make that same profit then that is bad business. It is quite apparent that none of us know the true answer as to whether the latter scenario is the case with some or any of our non core business activities until we do there''s a valid argument that we all take the "wage bill" excuse with a very large pinch of salt. Yes there is a very large wage bill both here and at Reading but we just do not know who brings in what and I''m sure we never will. We can try and work it out and in this case my sums tell me something non core is not profitable but exactly what I don''t know and accounting methods will always be one step ahead anyway so its a purely subjective fruitless excercise anyway. 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

You''ve lost me a bit now Roedy my friend. I think what you are saying is probably that as football fans we know better than the manager about team selection, transfers, training methods, tactics, formations and so on... and we know better than the board of directors about finance, loans, budgets, priorities, contracts, agents, and so on...

But what this thread has managed to prove is that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

All interesting stuff Mr C.  At least you''re not suggesting that they have tried to avoid profit off the pitch [:)].  As an aside, do you think that turnover per employee might be a useful performance measure ?  I had non-smokers fag break in front of my pc, and came up with this from that site that Roedy linked.  I don''t really understand accounts and the like, maybe you can tell me, does a high turnover per employee represent value for money ?

Team           Turnover       Emps   T/E
Birmingham   £ 40.1m        150 267333
Watford        £ 28.9m        118 244915
Charlton       £ 41.9m        227 184581

QPR             £ 6.49m         45  144222
Norwich        £ 23.77m       208 114278
Bristol C       £ 4.94m          44  112272
Hull             £ 9.5 m           88  107954
Soton          £ 20.50m         201 101990
Wolves        £ 23.8m          234 101709
Leicester      £ 20.15m        202 99752
Derby           £ 13.9m         172 80813
Plymouth      £ 7.73m          98  78877
Sheff Utd      £ 11.90m       167 71257
Sheff Wed     £ 12.23m       183 66830
Cardiff          £ 8.01m         120 66750
Them           £ 10.47m        171 61257
Burnley         £ 8.44m         142 59436
Stoke           £ 7.93m         134 59179
Reading        £ 17.76m       435 40845
Blackpool      £ 3.92m         105 37333

The figures are from the most recent year available, some 06 / 07, some 05 / 06.  Apologies for the formatting, it looked prettier in notepad...

If turnover per employee is a reasonable performance measure, then Roedy has a point about Madejski not getting value for his 435 employees.  We seem to be fairing rather better though.

[/quote]

No harm in looking at it that way blah but i don`t think it really adds much.  How many staff do you have to pay to cash a £7.1m parachute payment or a multi-million profit on selling players?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Reg Presley"]The reason we employ more staff than other clubs is that, unlike the vast majority, we do not contract out catering and stewarding. I have no idea whether doing our own stewarding is cheaper than paying someone else to do it. It was claimed somewhere, I think possibly in one of Doncaster''s webchats, that last year catering generated £500,000 more profit for the club than if we had simply had a franchise in. I have no idea how to verify this, and I have a sneaking suspicion that he may not be comparing like with like.
I presume that hotel employees must be included in the Reading employees total.
[/quote]

From what i`ve read he`s studiously avoided using the "P" word in relation to the catering.  "Net contribution" seems to be the favourite phrase......

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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 [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Thems the stats nutty.  Even Man.U only have 276.

[/quote]

So do you still believe this [:^)]

I can''t really believe you ever did.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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 [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Thems the stats nutty.  Even Man.U only have 276.

[/quote]

So do you still believe this [:^)]

I can''t really believe you ever did.

 

[/quote]

No, the earlier poster made a good spot that the Man.U and Chelsea figures don`t include the overall plc wage bill.  There are not many clubs outside the Prem that have more staff than us though, Brum had far less (for the entire plc) when they were in the Prem and even Arsenal and Man.City have only about 100 more than us.

The more you look at the figures the more puzzling they become though- how can Newcastle have 1300 employees?!  I can only assume that all their match-day staff/cleaners etc are on their payroll whereas for most other clubs they are agency staff.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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 [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Thems the stats nutty.  Even Man.U only have 276.

[/quote]

So do you still believe this [:^)]

I can''t really believe you ever did.

 

[/quote]

No, the earlier poster made a good spot that the Man.U and Chelsea figures don`t include the overall plc wage bill.  There are not many clubs outside the Prem that have more staff than us though, Brum had far less (for the entire plc) when they were in the Prem and even Arsenal and Man.City have only about 100 more than us.

The more you look at the figures the more puzzling they become though- how can Newcastle have 1300 employees?! [/quote]

have you seen their playing squad? lol!

jas :)

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Blimey, that was quick jas!

Correction, Man.City have about the same as us- 209, we have 206.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Blimey, that was quick jas!

Correction, Man.City have about the same as us- 209, we have 206.

[/quote]

i can move fast when i have too... which isnt often!

jas :)

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Blimey, that was quick jas!

Correction, Man.City have about the same as us- 209, we have 206.

[/quote]

I totally don''t believe that. Have you been there? I can''t believe those figures either. You have to be sure your comparing like for like. I can''t honestly believe that you find those figures possible. I think I''m seriously going to have to revise my opinion about you [8-|][;)]

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Blimey, that was quick jas!

Correction, Man.City have about the same as us- 209, we have 206.

[/quote]

I totally don''t believe that. Have you been there? I can''t believe those figures either. You have to be sure your comparing like for like. I can''t honestly believe that you find those figures possible. I think I''m seriously going to have to revise my opinion about you [8-|][;)]

 

[/quote]

Why not? Look at the figures for all the other plc`s, there are very few as high as ours and several are at about half our level.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Blimey, that was quick jas!

Correction, Man.City have about the same as us- 209, we have 206.

[/quote]

I totally don''t believe that. Have you been there? I can''t believe those figures either. You have to be sure your comparing like for like. I can''t honestly believe that you find those figures possible. I think I''m seriously going to have to revise my opinion about you [8-|][;)]

 

[/quote]

Why not? Look at the figures for all the other plc`s, there are very few as high as ours and several are at about half our level.

[/quote]

Have a look at Coventry City. If they were all set out like that maybe comparisons would be worth something.

I can''t believe you ever seriously believed Chelsea employ less people than us [:^)]

 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Barclay_Boy"]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?[/quote]

Well I challenged them because it was unbelievable to imagine we employed more people than Chelsea. I will carry on challenging them while posters use them to make inaccurate claims.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Blimey, that was quick jas!

Correction, Man.City have about the same as us- 209, we have 206.

[/quote]

I totally don''t believe that. Have you been there? I can''t believe those figures either. You have to be sure your comparing like for like. I can''t honestly believe that you find those figures possible. I think I''m seriously going to have to revise my opinion about you [8-|][;)]

 

[/quote]

Why not? Look at the figures for all the other plc`s, there are very few as high as ours and several are at about half our level.

[/quote]

Have a look at Coventry City. If they were all set out like that maybe comparisons would be worth something.

I can''t believe you ever seriously believed Chelsea employ less people than us [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Huh?  Had a few Friday night sherbets nutty?  The Chelsea (and Man.Utd) figure doesn`t include the staff for the whole plc so i`ve already admitted it`s irrelevant.  Most of the others (including us, Arsenal, Man.City) give the staff numbers for the whole plc so are directly comparable, and the vast majority of other plc`s are well below us on number of staff.

[claud 0]

I would urge people to not take the employee figures too seriously.

It costs less to employ three part time employees than it does one full time. The figures do not state the status of the employees, just the number.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Blimey, that was quick jas!

Correction, Man.City have about the same as us- 209, we have 206.

[/quote]

I totally don''t believe that. Have you been there? I can''t believe those figures either. You have to be sure your comparing like for like. I can''t honestly believe that you find those figures possible. I think I''m seriously going to have to revise my opinion about you [8-|][;)]

 

[/quote]

Why not? Look at the figures for all the other plc`s, there are very few as high as ours and several are at about half our level.

[/quote]

Have a look at Coventry City. If they were all set out like that maybe comparisons would be worth something.

I can''t believe you ever seriously believed Chelsea employ less people than us [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Huh?  Had a few Friday night sherbets nutty?  The Chelsea (and Man.Utd) figure doesn`t include the staff for the whole plc so i`ve already admitted it`s irrelevant.  Most of the others (including us, Arsenal, Man.City) give the staff numbers for the whole plc so are directly comparable, and the vast majority of other plc`s are well below us on number of staff.

[/quote]

No they''re not directly comparable Mr Carrow. Because you don''t know if you are comparing like for like. What if Manchester City Contract in a lot of the staff we employ? You would then have to include those figures for the costs of contracted staff otherwise the comparisons are meaningless.

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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 [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Thems the stats nutty.  Even Man.U only have 276.

[/quote]

So do you still believe this [:^)]

I can''t really believe you ever did.

 

[/quote]

No, the earlier poster made a good spot that the Man.U and Chelsea figures don`t include the overall plc wage bill.  There are not many clubs outside the Prem that have more staff than us though, Brum had far less (for the entire plc) when they were in the Prem and even Arsenal and Man.City have only about 100 more than us.

The more you look at the figures the more puzzling they become though- how can Newcastle have 1300 employees?!  I can only assume that all their match-day staff/cleaners etc are on their payroll whereas for most other clubs they are agency staff.

[/quote]

Read the post above nutty, i`ve already said there are probably anomolies when it comes to contracted/agency staff etc.  Saying the figures are "comparable" doesn`t mean that there are not differences we can argue the toss over. 

We do seem to have very high staffing levels compared to the figures given for other clubs and i don`t think that is all down to other clubs contracting out more jobs than us- i know we do quite alot of that anyway.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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 [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Thems the stats nutty.  Even Man.U only have 276.

[/quote]

So do you still believe this [:^)]

I can''t really believe you ever did.

 

[/quote]

No, the earlier poster made a good spot that the Man.U and Chelsea figures don`t include the overall plc wage bill.  There are not many clubs outside the Prem that have more staff than us though, Brum had far less (for the entire plc) when they were in the Prem and even Arsenal and Man.City have only about 100 more than us.

The more you look at the figures the more puzzling they become though- how can Newcastle have 1300 employees?!  I can only assume that all their match-day staff/cleaners etc are on their payroll whereas for most other clubs they are agency staff.

[/quote]

Read the post above nutty, i`ve already said there are probably anomolies when it comes to contracted/agency staff etc.  Saying the figures are "comparable" doesn`t mean that there are not differences we can argue the toss over. 

We do seem to have very high staffing levels compared to the figures given for other clubs and i don`t think that is all down to other clubs contracting out more jobs than us- i know we do quite alot of that anyway.

[/quote]

So you believe the direct comparison between the people employed by Manchester City and Norwich City based on these figures. And you believed, until you had it pointed out to you differently, that we employ more people than Chelsea.

And yet you accuse me of having too many Friday Night Sherbets [B]

I reckon you''ve been ''on it'' all day [B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][:O]

 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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 [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Thems the stats nutty.  Even Man.U only have 276.

[/quote]

So do you still believe this [:^)]

I can''t really believe you ever did.

 

[/quote]

No, the earlier poster made a good spot that the Man.U and Chelsea figures don`t include the overall plc wage bill.  There are not many clubs outside the Prem that have more staff than us though, Brum had far less (for the entire plc) when they were in the Prem and even Arsenal and Man.City have only about 100 more than us.

The more you look at the figures the more puzzling they become though- how can Newcastle have 1300 employees?!  I can only assume that all their match-day staff/cleaners etc are on their payroll whereas for most other clubs they are agency staff.

[/quote]

Read the post above nutty, i`ve already said there are probably anomolies when it comes to contracted/agency staff etc.  Saying the figures are "comparable" doesn`t mean that there are not differences we can argue the toss over. 

We do seem to have very high staffing levels compared to the figures given for other clubs and i don`t think that is all down to other clubs contracting out more jobs than us- i know we do quite alot of that anyway.

[/quote]

So you believe the direct comparison between the people employed by Manchester City and Norwich City based on these figures. And you believed, until you had it pointed out to you differently, that we employ more people than Chelsea.

And yet you accuse me of having too many Friday Night Sherbets [B]

I reckon you''ve been ''on it'' all day [B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][:O]

 

[/quote]

As have shown on another thread that you still don''t want to stop debating this Mr Carrow maybe you can explain to me how you believe it''s possible that Coventry City employ over twice as many people as Manchester City do. Surely common sense tells you this cannot be right and that any comparisons based on these figures are meaningless.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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 [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Thems the stats nutty.  Even Man.U only have 276.

[/quote]

So do you still believe this [:^)]

I can''t really believe you ever did.

 

[/quote]

No, the earlier poster made a good spot that the Man.U and Chelsea figures don`t include the overall plc wage bill.  There are not many clubs outside the Prem that have more staff than us though, Brum had far less (for the entire plc) when they were in the Prem and even Arsenal and Man.City have only about 100 more than us.

The more you look at the figures the more puzzling they become though- how can Newcastle have 1300 employees?!  I can only assume that all their match-day staff/cleaners etc are on their payroll whereas for most other clubs they are agency staff.

[/quote]

Read the post above nutty, i`ve already said there are probably anomolies when it comes to contracted/agency staff etc.  Saying the figures are "comparable" doesn`t mean that there are not differences we can argue the toss over. 

We do seem to have very high staffing levels compared to the figures given for other clubs and i don`t think that is all down to other clubs contracting out more jobs than us- i know we do quite alot of that anyway.

[/quote]

Read the above (again.....) nutty, i`m not saying the figures prove anything, just as you pointing out a couple of clubs in our league having higher staffing levels proves nothing.  Look at the figures for all comparable plc`s and then answer me honestly whether we are in the top 10% in terms of staffing levels.