DONCASTER - Wages the cause of club's money woes

[Mello Yello 2,293]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Yankee, if Mr Carrow is negative, then so am I. So are many people I know (and most of them don''t inhabit this message board). They do however inhabit local pubs and workplaces and most of them have been going to games for years and feel they have every right to question what is going on at the club. I too would like some straight answers as to where certain chunks of the parachute money, Premiership money and profit from player sales has gone/being used for. I too find Doncaster''s statements misleading. I am, I confess, not an accountant. What I am is a supporter of our football club, but that does not mean as such, I agree with everything which comes out of the mouths of club employees. To be a supporter doesn''t mean accepting what everyone says as gospel truth, or even agreeing with their ways of doing things. It means turning up and supporting your team, when you can do so, and singing your heart out in encouragement, even (as on Wednesday) when only about 10 of you are still singing. It means giving all you have in heart and soul to get behind the team on the pitch, even if they are having an off day, it does not, in my book, mean accepting that all that happens in the ivory tower Mr Doncaster inhabits is "in the best interests of Norwich City Football Club"[/quote]

Then do me a favour Gazza, because I am not on that side of the water. I think I read that Neil is at the NCISA meeting ( which I think is this coming Monday ) which I read you are attending. If he is, ask for clarification on the staement that Doncaster made and see if you can get a straight answer. I''d appreciate you advising whether he provides it or CLEARLY dodges the issue. I realise that I don''t have the exposure that many of you do in Norwich but, honestly, I do try to read and view as many reports from different executives of various football teams and, based upon that admittedly narrower perspective, I have to say that Doncaster does a relatively good job of communicating on behalf of NCFC.

[/quote]

Well I think he''s just a patronisin'' speccy nerd......so there!

[/quote]

I bet you didn''t go to the same school as he did Mello. On the positive side, you know what grits are.

[/quote]

What''s school?......I''d certainly rather be me - than him.  I know what grits are (and Hershey bars) because even though as you state, I''m unlikely to reach the dizzy educated heights of our most illustrious and industrious but high salary earning ''The Chief'' (and yes, I admit - I''m a thicko). But, I''ve still managed to blag my way through life and see an awful lot of cultures and countries around the world.....Now, who would folk rather socialise with? Me or the Darth (interesting) Donkster?.....Mmmh, I suppose that you personally, would prefer the Donk......alongside a few other of the ''idolise-rs of intellects'' that frequent this forum.......He is a bit cheesy and schmaltzy though, isn''t he?

Bring back Gordon Bennett!

[gazzathegreat 0]

For your signature alone, Mello, I would rather socalise with you.

However on Monday night I will be sharing the same room as our esteemed Chief Exec, don''t worry I will be gentle with him.

[GMF 744]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

GazzaTCC, whether we agree that we are not comparing like with like is pretty irrelevant when he didn`t feel it necessary to do that in an article read by thousands.  We may be able to see the wider context, but there is no effort to put that across in the article and what we are left with is a totally misleading statement that most will take at face value.

I take it the next time someone posts "apparently our player wage bill is higher than it`s ever been in this league", you`ll be the first in line to point out that "sorry, despite what Doncaster said, that`s actually not true...."?

[/quote]

The fundamental issue is that the articule is over 1,000 words long and, whilst I''ve chosen to read the whole lot (and, yes, there are certain aspects that lack clarity and I''d like more informatiuon on) and take a view thereon, you''ve focused purely on the words "but still the highest player budget that we have ever had in this division."

You''ve ignored the fact that the second paragraph makes references to "one off" items and the difficulties of making direct comparisons on a year by year basis resulting therefrom.

You''ve also chosen to ignore the caveats in his fourth paragraph, " Assuming that we sell-out our season tickets but that we do not enjoy a lucrative cup run, a breakeven player budget (inclusive of player salaries, bonuses, net transfer spending and agents'' fees) is around £5million."

Finally, you''ve suggested that all "we are left with is a totally misleading statement that most will take at face value." I would respectfully suggest that''s pure nonsense and an insult to the intelligence of most readers of the articule and the posters on here. If anyone is misleading or "spinning" it''s you by suggesting a myth is born.

Why would I post such words as "that''s actually not true," should someone post "but still the highest player budget that we have ever had in this division," when I''ve said on several times elsewhere in this thread, if you can be bothered to read what I''ve actually written, that 2006 was higher?  

[Clint 221]

I would suspect the 2 major reasons that our wages are so high is that for one, we are paying overated players like Fozzy £8k pw when I suspect in the past far better players like Francis, were being paid considerably less than this.

The other reason is tied-in with this in that we have traiditonally signed a lot of relatively unknown gems from lower league clubs who would be earning signifcantly less.  Therefore, they would be happy to take a reasonable pay-rise and didn''t expect £8 pw.  We also used to have a system whereby, youngsters on £300 pw would actually make it through to the first team.  Anyone, knows that if you get promoted from within, you get paid far less that if someone else is brought on in from outside to do the same job.

Wheras, now we simply borrow players from PL teams.  This can be very expensive in that we will be paying a large proportion of these guys wages.  I would expect that for Sibi, Grounds, Bertrand, Omuzusi, Kennedy etc, even if we are only funding 50% of their wages, we still could be paying far more than if we signed someone from Peterboro, Crewe or MK Dons etc and signifcnatly more than if our first team squad was made up of home-grown talent.

 

 

[Clint 221]

That should be £8k pw week and not £8 pw!!!  If we only use to pay players £8 pw, that would explain why our wage budget has shot up!

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

GazzaTCC, whether we agree that we are not comparing like with like is pretty irrelevant when he didn`t feel it necessary to do that in an article read by thousands.  We may be able to see the wider context, but there is no effort to put that across in the article and what we are left with is a totally misleading statement that most will take at face value.

I take it the next time someone posts "apparently our player wage bill is higher than it`s ever been in this league", you`ll be the first in line to point out that "sorry, despite what Doncaster said, that`s actually not true...."?

[/quote]

The fundamental issue is that the articule is over 1,000 words long and, whilst I''ve chosen to read the whole lot (and, yes, there are certain aspects that lack clarity and I''d like more informatiuon on) and take a view thereon, you''ve focused purely on the words "but still the highest player budget that we have ever had in this division."

You''ve ignored the fact that the second paragraph makes references to "one off" items and the difficulties of making direct comparisons on a year by year basis resulting therefrom.

You''ve also chosen to ignore the caveats in his fourth paragraph, " Assuming that we sell-out our season tickets but that we do not enjoy a lucrative cup run, a breakeven player budget (inclusive of player salaries, bonuses, net transfer spending and agents'' fees) is around £5million."

Finally, you''ve suggested that all "we are left with is a totally misleading statement that most will take at face value." I would respectfully suggest that''s pure nonsense and an insult to the intelligence of most readers of the articule and the posters on here. If anyone is misleading or "spinning" it''s you by suggesting a myth is born.

Why would I post such words as "that''s actually not true," should someone post "but still the highest player budget that we have ever had in this division," when I''ve said on several times elsewhere in this thread, if you can be bothered to read what I''ve actually written, that 2006 was higher?  

[/quote]

Look, it`s totally up to me which bit of the article i choose to focus on and whether or not to bother with another five paragraph essay, when i have learned that a good number of posters will sneer at it, dismiss it or ignore it if it paints a picture they don`t like.

So is it an insult to supporters intelligence to say that, when the well-paid C.E. of our club states "the highest player budget that we have ever had in this division", most people will assume he`s telling the truth?  Or do you think we`ve been spun so much that people will assume it`s more of the same?

Are you going to tell Clint that our wages haven`t actually "shot up", or are you content to see people fed misinformation whilst having a go at those who expose it?  Very strange.

[T 190]

However, it does appear the quote is being taken out of context of the article and the general financial situation. The key point ND was making is that we like a number of other clubs are spending more on the player budget  than the funds generated from football activities. Secondly, as pointed out previously I do not see how you can say that it is misinformation unless you have access to the NCFC budgets. Furthermore the net player expenditure post relegation would have benefited from the sale of a number of players eg Ashton which would have offset the playes wages so it is not clear whether your point is valid or not.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="T"]

However, it does appear the quote is being taken out of context of the article and the general financial situation. The key point ND was making is that we like a number of other clubs are spending more on the player budget  than the funds generated from football activities. Secondly, as pointed out previously I do not see how you can say that it is misinformation unless you have access to the NCFC budgets. Furthermore the net player expenditure post relegation would have benefited from the sale of a number of players eg Ashton which would have offset the playes wages so it is not clear whether your point is valid or not.

[/quote]

Quite right T. This is irrelevant to the aims of Mr. Carrow however. If the article was about the goodness of tea and buttered toast with plum jam then Mr. Carrow would have a need to focus on the corner of the toast that is slightly burnt and castigate those who had produced it. What''s worse, poor Mr. Carrow has been doing this for so long now he no longer recognises his own actions for what they really are. 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

However, it does appear the quote is being taken out of context of the article and the general financial situation. The key point ND was making is that we like a number of other clubs are spending more on the player budget  than the funds generated from football activities. Secondly, as pointed out previously I do not see how you can say that it is misinformation unless you have access to the NCFC budgets. Furthermore the net player expenditure post relegation would have benefited from the sale of a number of players eg Ashton which would have offset the playes wages so it is not clear whether your point is valid or not.

[/quote]

T, if Doncaster had inserted a caveat such as "in relation to turnover" or something similar the statement would be fine.  If you are honestly saying that a budget of £8.5m including everything- wages, transfer fees, signing fees etc- this season when we don`t have parachute payments can possibly be more than a season when we had £7.1m parachute payments and player wages alone were over £9m, then i think you are stretching to the ridiculous levels of spin we have got used to from the club.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Canary Nut"]

What happened to the division related player contracts?

£8.5m wage bill for a club that will do well to finish mid table!

 How do the likes of Preston North End manage?

[/quote]

When Watford got promoted last time around their wage bill was reported as being less than £3m pa. Just goes to prove that spending more money than the next team doesn''t guarantee promotion.

[/quote]

According to footballeconomy.co.uk Watfords wages as a percentage of turnover of about £7m was 95% in 03/04 and 84% in 04/05.  This is obviously the overall wage bill and there isn`t a figure for 05/06 when they were promoted, but i think £3m player wages is extremely unlikely.

[T 190]

I could say it seems you now to seem to accept the general tone of the ND column, that you chose to focus on a particular point, that you can not know whether you are right or not becasuse you don''t know the budget, that you have ignored the income from player of sales BUT quite frankly who cares we won and I do believe we could be above Ipswich.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

I could say it seems you now to seem to accept the general tone of the ND column, that you chose to focus on a particular point, that you can not know whether you are right or not becasuse you don''t know the budget, that you have ignored the income from player of sales BUT quite frankly who cares we won and I do believe we could be above Ipswich.

[/quote]

Where have i said i don`t "accept the general tone of the ND column"?  What i don`t accept is yet another misleading statement which leads to supporters posting things like "we are paying players more than we ever have done in this league", when this is simply untrue.  And i think you and i both know that that is exactly the result ND intended.  I assume, in the interests of fair-mindedness, you will be putting people right on that?  I wouldn`t mind betting that statement is repeated in some of the local sports journalists forthcoming columns as well.....

In pointing out income from player sales being higher in previous seasons you are simply undermining your own argument, as the club have regularly stated that "all transfer income is added to the managers budget", so overall budgets in previous seasons would have been even higher.

Good win though....[:D]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]"we are paying players more than we ever have done in this league"[/quote]Would the phrase " we are paying a higher percentage of turnover on player wages than we ever have in this league" be fairer ?

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]"we are paying players more than we ever have done in this league"[/quote]Would the phrase " we are paying a higher percentage of turnover on player wages than we ever have in this league" be fairer ?[/quote]Fairer?No. Factually incorrect?Yes.

[5-4-1 0]

seems reasonable

[GMF 744]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

GazzaTCC, whether we agree that we are not comparing like with like is pretty irrelevant when he didn`t feel it necessary to do that in an article read by thousands.  We may be able to see the wider context, but there is no effort to put that across in the article and what we are left with is a totally misleading statement that most will take at face value.

I take it the next time someone posts "apparently our player wage bill is higher than it`s ever been in this league", you`ll be the first in line to point out that "sorry, despite what Doncaster said, that`s actually not true...."?

[/quote]

The fundamental issue is that the articule is over 1,000 words long and, whilst I''ve chosen to read the whole lot (and, yes, there are certain aspects that lack clarity and I''d like more informatiuon on) and take a view thereon, you''ve focused purely on the words "but still the highest player budget that we have ever had in this division."

You''ve ignored the fact that the second paragraph makes references to "one off" items and the difficulties of making direct comparisons on a year by year basis resulting therefrom.

You''ve also chosen to ignore the caveats in his fourth paragraph, " Assuming that we sell-out our season tickets but that we do not enjoy a lucrative cup run, a breakeven player budget (inclusive of player salaries, bonuses, net transfer spending and agents'' fees) is around £5million."

Finally, you''ve suggested that all "we are left with is a totally misleading statement that most will take at face value." I would respectfully suggest that''s pure nonsense and an insult to the intelligence of most readers of the articule and the posters on here. If anyone is misleading or "spinning" it''s you by suggesting a myth is born.

Why would I post such words as "that''s actually not true," should someone post "but still the highest player budget that we have ever had in this division," when I''ve said on several times elsewhere in this thread, if you can be bothered to read what I''ve actually written, that 2006 was higher?  

[/quote]

Look, it`s totally up to me which bit of the article i choose to focus on and whether or not to bother with another five paragraph essay, when i have learned that a good number of posters will sneer at it, dismiss it or ignore it if it paints a picture they don`t like.

So is it an insult to supporters intelligence to say that, when the well-paid C.E. of our club states "the highest player budget that we have ever had in this division", most people will assume he`s telling the truth?  Or do you think we`ve been spun so much that people will assume it`s more of the same?

Are you going to tell Clint that our wages haven`t actually "shot up", or are you content to see people fed misinformation whilst having a go at those who expose it?  Very strange.

[/quote]

Of course it''s up to you which bit of an article you focus on, or ignore, as the case may be, although there''s always a danger that this could undermine your credibility or weaken a particular arguement you''re trying to focus on. I''ve done it myself sometimes. 

I have to say again, as you keep going on about it, I don''t agree with the statement "the highest player budget that we have ever had in this division," and suspect ND should have qualified it by adding something like "without the benefit of parachute payments." In adding this, however, I''m not trying to defend him.

I do think, however, T makes a good point in that there''s a difference between a player budget and actual expenditure. In reality, budgets aren''t set in stone, they should evolve as a season progresses. Clearly, therefore, for example, when Earnie and Etuhu were sold the season before last, the budget would have changed.

The crux of the latest ND article, which seems to of been overlooked so far, is of course, irrespective of the playing budget we had last season, we''re still going to report a seven figure loss for last season. Additionally, given that the playing budget is stated as being larger for this season than last, all other things being equal, the loss is likely to be larger still for the current financial year. 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Fair enough GazzaTCC.  As you`ve probably realised this kind of thing really winds me up, and in my experience the vast majority of supporters (including local journalists) will take it at face value and we`ll now see the "highest ever player budget in this league" repeated in articles and posts.  It`s been happening for years and i don`t think it does the club any favours.

As for the proposed loss- obviously we could get into another debate about spiralling off-pitch costs etc., but suffice to say if the accounts show the player wage bill as percentage of turnover back up to the level it was before the Prem, and non-football wages decline for a change, then i will readily concede that it`s the football side that`s eating most of the income up.  I have my doubts.....  It`s worth bearing in mind though that even the supposedly "highest ever" £8.5m budget is still pretty much covered by ticket revenue alone.

[GMF 744]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Fair enough GazzaTCC.  As you`ve probably realised this kind of thing really winds me up, and in my experience the vast majority of supporters (including local journalists) will take it at face value and we`ll now see the "highest ever player budget in this league" repeated in articles and posts.  It`s been happening for years and i don`t think it does the club any favours.

As for the proposed loss- obviously we could get into another debate about spiralling off-pitch costs etc., but suffice to say if the accounts show the player wage bill as percentage of turnover back up to the level it was before the Prem, and non-football wages decline for a change, then i will readily concede that it`s the football side that`s eating most of the income up.  I have my doubts.....  It`s worth bearing in mind though that even the supposedly "highest ever" £8.5m budget is still pretty much covered by ticket revenue alone.

[/quote]

I had noticed it winds you up [;)] and I, for one, won''t be repeated it.

Personally, I think player''s wages should be circa 50% of turnover (Arsenal just reported breaking through the £100M pa mark off a turnover of just over £200M) but I suspect we''re going to be around the third mark (£5M was mentioned in the latest article and I suspect the turnover is going to be circa £15M) but, as you say, that''s probably a debate for another day, or, next month some time, when the year end figures are reported. 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Well i`ve just read yesterdays evening news article and guess what.....?[:(] [:S]  Another myth is off and running.  Also the unsubstantiated "Delia has invested £11m" repeated again.  I actually emailed D.Cuffley asking him to substantiate this figure to promote more informed debate and, guess what?  No reply....

I cannot support a group of people who promote misinformation to support their position.

[nutty nigel 7,535]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Well i`ve just read yesterdays evening news article and guess what.....?[:(] [:S]  Another myth is off and running.  Also the unsubstantiated "Delia has invested £11m" repeated again.  I actually emailed D.Cuffley asking him to substantiate this figure to promote more informed debate and, guess what?  No reply....

I cannot support a group of people who promote misinformation to support their position.

[/quote]

But Mr Carrow... that''s all that happens from both sides of this debate. From Cullum himself to Doncaster to the posters on the board, yourself and myself included. Because the facts aren''t known. So we take what information we have and fit it around whatever point of view we have at the time. I can''t for the life of me work out why Doncaster didn''t qualfy that statement by saying as a percentage of income or without Premiership related income. And I also agree with your point about a myth being born and soon it will be quoted as fact. But there are so many myths right now and I have been posting about some of them them for months.

 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Well i`ve just read yesterdays evening news article and guess what.....?[:(] [:S]  Another myth is off and running.  Also the unsubstantiated "Delia has invested £11m" repeated again.  I actually emailed D.Cuffley asking him to substantiate this figure to promote more informed debate and, guess what?  No reply....

I cannot support a group of people who promote misinformation to support their position.

[/quote]

May be you should ask the Sports Editor or the Editor to facilitate a response.