Yorkshire Canary 118 Posted March 10, 2009 I make no allegations here merley ask the question, does anyone know what it costs us to services the charges mage by the board, Doncaster and the rest of the management crew. Over the years i have also had an interest in Carlisle Utd where we have family. At one point they were headed by a chap by the name of Knighton, who in effect took them into the Conference. He was initially badged up as a benefactor but it was later discovered that the club was paying him significant levels of interest on his loans and he sold off the family silver when he wanted cash out of the club. As i say i only ask the question. I cannot for the life of me get my head around nearly a £9 million wage bill at Norwich, particularly now Huckerby and Dublin have gone. This must be about double what Burnley, Preston and Bristol city are paying. With our small and inadequate squad this does not add up which makes me ask where is the cash going? and where has it gone in the past Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whoareyou? 0 Posted March 10, 2009 The total wage bill is £13.5 million, not £9 million. Make of that what you will! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yorkshire Canary 118 Posted March 10, 2009 If that is the case then it is little short of disgusting £ 4.5 million in salaries to non players. We are either being run by total idiots or as i suspected somewhat the club is being "milked" by a few people who are hiding behind harsh economic realities and all that crap. Total and utter clearout needed from top to bottom Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T 190 Posted March 10, 2009 manager and coaches make up the most significant part of non playing staff costs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yorkshire Canary 118 Posted March 10, 2009 A half decent championship manager should not be on more than £2 to 300,000 ayear and the other back room boys on a lot less than that, that should only come to @ £1m ish. I do think we will have been paying over the odds until Gunny and crew took charge, he will be on pea nuts especially if linked to win bonuses Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T 190 Posted March 10, 2009 pay off for Worthington was 700k so probably about one year pay. Roeder was probably on a million so total costs about 2m when you include all the related employers costs for the whole coaching team Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rjwc22 0 Posted March 10, 2009 Still a long way short of 4.5m.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T 190 Posted March 10, 2009 Don''t have the accounts in front of me but if you take ssy 200k for nd and divide the costs by the various other staff which may be around 200 off the top of my head then it is 11.5k per head for the other staff including employee costs ie the costs soon add up very quickly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blahblahblah 2 Posted March 10, 2009 With the eventguard staff now off the payroll I''d imagine the non-playing staff wage bill will be much smaller from now on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Carrow 376 Posted March 10, 2009 [quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]If that is the case then it is little short of disgusting £ 4.5 million in salaries to non players. We are either being run by total idiots or as i suspected somewhat the club is being "milked" by a few people who are hiding behind harsh economic realities and all that crap. Total and utter clearout needed from top to bottom[/quote]In 2007 when we still had a parachute payment total wages were £14.4m, player wages having decreased by £1.6m (P.7 `07 accounts) on the previous years £9m to £7.4m.I will repeat. Player wages were £7.4m out of a total wage bill of £14.4m, ie. £7m was being spent on "other wages".If you want to believe that our player wage bill is now £8.5m when we have no parachute payment that is entirely up to you. It is of course utter nonsense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blahblahblah 2 Posted March 10, 2009 [quote user="Mr.Carrow"]If you want to believe that our player wage bill is now £8.5m when we have no parachute payment that is entirely up to you. It is of course utter nonsense.[/quote]I thought the understanding was that it is the combined wages and transfers in / loan fees bill. So it''s about mid-table championship spending. Shame the team isn''t a mid table championship club. As others have said, this seems to be down to the short term nature of squad building. I was all for loans as a means to get players you couldn''t otherwise afford permanently, but can see the downside - especially when it''s played out in front of you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,501 Posted March 10, 2009 I don''t know if this is common knowledge, but this seems quite interesting. I can''t seem to do hyperlinks, so you''ll have to copy & paste: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/index.htmIt seems to be a couple of years old, but still informative.Thought - nothing to do with anybody here, is it?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,554 Posted March 10, 2009 [quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]If that is the case then it is little short of disgusting £ 4.5 million in salaries to non players. We are either being run by total idiots or as i suspected somewhat the club is being "milked" by a few people who are hiding behind harsh economic realities and all that crap. Total and utter clearout needed from top to bottom[/quote]In 2007 when we still had a parachute payment total wages were £14.4m, player wages having decreased by £1.6m (P.7 `07 accounts) on the previous years £9m to £7.4m.I will repeat. Player wages were £7.4m out of a total wage bill of £14.4m, ie. £7m was being spent on "other wages".If you want to believe that our player wage bill is now £8.5m when we have no parachute payment that is entirely up to you. It is of course utter nonsense.[/quote]I don''t know if this helps, but in September Neil Doncaster gave a figure of £8.5m for the player budget for this season, and he defined that as including salaries, bonuses, net transfer spending and agents’ fees. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,554 Posted March 10, 2009 Wow, that''s quite impressively incomprehensible. I''ll try again....I don''t know if this helps, but in September Neil Doncaster gave the figure of £8.5m as being the player budget for this season, and he defined that as including:SalariesBonusesNet transfer spendingAgents'' fees Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2Cakes 0 Posted March 10, 2009 A copy of the clubs accounts can be purchased from http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/ for £1.It should contain all the information you are interested in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Fish Seller 0 Posted March 10, 2009 [quote user="PurpleCanary"]Wow, that''s quite impressively incomprehensible. I''ll try again....I don''t know if this helps, but in September Neil Doncaster gave the figure of £8.5m as being the player budget for this season, and he defined that as including:[/quote]Salaries - The big question.Bonuses - Hardly relevant with this bunch of losers (I would hope)Net transfer spending - Net transfer spending? That''s a joke we have made a profit on transfer spending so technically if the £8.5m figure includes this then the Board haven''t actually made £8.5m available, more like £7m.Agents'' fees - Well we know the truth about the first half of the season now, can only guess what Jan-May will cost us with these leeches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
|BA 0 Posted March 10, 2009 [quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]If that is the case then it is little short of disgusting £ 4.5 million in salaries to non players. We are either being run by total idiots or as i suspected somewhat the club is being "milked" by a few people who are hiding behind harsh economic realities and all that crap. Total and utter clearout needed from top to bottom[/quote]So over the odds is wrong and peanuts is wrong???As for the fella at Carlisle he was a known con man for years. Didn''t he attempt to take over Man U? He was even paraded o the pitch at Old Trafford if I remember right. If Carlisle couldn''t see what everybody else saw....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Carrow 376 Posted March 10, 2009 Totally agree blah and Purple but since that article i believe Doncaster has used the £8.5m figure in relation to "player wages" several times and it seems to have become yet another established myth. Deliberately IMO..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Carrow 376 Posted March 10, 2009 [quote user="ron obvious"]I don''t know if this is common knowledge, but this seems quite interesting. I can''t seem to do hyperlinks, so you''ll have to copy & paste: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/index.htmIt seems to be a couple of years old, but still informative.Thought - nothing to do with anybody here, is it??[/quote]Thanks for the link ron. I saw that a while back but forgot the addy. I would encourage anyone to read and absorb. One point i`d like to draw attention to is the "Staff and payroll" section which shows player and coach numbers staying roughly level since 1999, but "other staff" numbers doubling. This is one of the clubs biggest problems IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Fish Seller 0 Posted March 10, 2009 [quote user="IBA"]As for the fella at Carlisle he was a known con man for years. Didn''t he attempt to take over Man U? He was even paraded o the pitch at Old Trafford if I remember right. [/quote]Hmmmmm. Con man, paraded on the pitch at old Trafford?You must be getting confused with Karl ''Fatneck'' Power. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Morriss 69 Posted March 11, 2009 One simple thing that occured to me, with the exeption of Delia and Wynn-Jones who must have put more money into the club than they have taken, surely the rest of the board dont want to go because there on healthy salaries that they wouldnt get elsewhere? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,554 Posted March 11, 2009 The only director who receives a salary is Neil Doncaster. Smith and Jones and Foulger and Munby are paid nothing for serving as directors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0 Posted March 11, 2009 [quote user="T"]pay off for Worthington was 700k so probably about one year pay. Roeder was probably on a million so total costs about 2m when you include all the related employers costs for the whole coaching team[/quote]GR. was not on a million. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YankeeCanary 0 Posted March 11, 2009 [quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="ron obvious"]I don''t know if this is common knowledge, but this seems quite interesting. I can''t seem to do hyperlinks, so you''ll have to copy & paste: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/index.htmIt seems to be a couple of years old, but still informative.Thought - nothing to do with anybody here, is it??[/quote]Thanks for the link ron. I saw that a while back but forgot the addy. I would encourage anyone to read and absorb. One point i`d like to draw attention to is the "Staff and payroll" section which shows player and coach numbers staying roughly level since 1999, but "other staff" numbers doubling. This is one of the clubs biggest problems IMO.[/quote]That is one aspect Mr. Carrow. Another is that the player wage bill, as a percentage of the total wages, tended to average 60% in a fairly narrow band through the years shown, with the 2006 ratio being almost identical to the level five years earlier, despite the playing/coaching staff remaining relatively level in numbers during that time span. It was also stated that Norwich are one of the few clubs showing this kind of transparency. Imagine the difficulty you would have in negatively pulling apart the accounts of most other clubs who don''t even provide that level of transparency. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T 190 Posted March 11, 2009 [quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="ron obvious"]I don''t know if this is common knowledge, but this seems quite interesting. I can''t seem to do hyperlinks, so you''ll have to copy & paste: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/index.htmIt seems to be a couple of years old, but still informative.Thought - nothing to do with anybody here, is it??[/quote]Thanks for the link ron. I saw that a while back but forgot the addy. I would encourage anyone to read and absorb. One point i`d like to draw attention to is the "Staff and payroll" section which shows player and coach numbers staying roughly level since 1999, but "other staff" numbers doubling. This is one of the clubs biggest problems IMO.[/quote]....and the revenue has gone up four fold in the same period as the staff numbers have doubled. Furthermore it could be because staff are on the payroll rather than outsourced so it is just a cost reallocation. i.e. looking at one number in isolation without looking at all the other numbers and the reasons behind those numbers is totally and utterly meaningless which anyone who understands finance knows Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Fish Seller 0 Posted March 11, 2009 [quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="ron obvious"]I don''t know if this is common knowledge, but this seems quite interesting. I can''t seem to do hyperlinks, so you''ll have to copy & paste: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/index.htmIt seems to be a couple of years old, but still informative.Thought - nothing to do with anybody here, is it??[/quote]Thanks for the link ron. I saw that a while back but forgot the addy. I would encourage anyone to read and absorb. One point i`d like to draw attention to is the "Staff and payroll" section which shows player and coach numbers staying roughly level since 1999, but "other staff" numbers doubling. This is one of the clubs biggest problems IMO.[/quote]That is one aspect Mr. Carrow. Another is that the player wage bill, as a percentage of the total wages, tended to average 60% in a fairly narrow band through the years shown, with the 2006 ratio being almost identical to the level five years earlier, despite the playing/coaching staff remaining relatively level in numbers during that time span. It was also stated that Norwich are one of the few clubs showing this kind of transparency. Imagine the difficulty you would have in negatively pulling apart the accounts of most other clubs who don''t even provide that level of transparency.[/quote]You call changing the accounting methods from one year to the next so that no direct comparison might be drawn ''transparent'' YC?Unlike many other clubs in this division NCFC''s accounts cannot be found via Google. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lappinitup 629 Posted March 11, 2009 [quote user="T"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="ron obvious"]I don''t know if this is common knowledge, but this seems quite interesting. I can''t seem to do hyperlinks, so you''ll have to copy & paste: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/index.htmIt seems to be a couple of years old, but still informative.Thought - nothing to do with anybody here, is it??[/quote]Thanks for the link ron. I saw that a while back but forgot the addy. I would encourage anyone to read and absorb. One point i`d like to draw attention to is the "Staff and payroll" section which shows player and coach numbers staying roughly level since 1999, but "other staff" numbers doubling. This is one of the clubs biggest problems IMO.[/quote]....and the revenue has gone up four fold in the same period as the staff numbers have doubled. Furthermore it could be because staff are on the payroll rather than outsourced so it is just a cost reallocation. i.e. looking at one number in isolation without looking at all the other numbers and the reasons behind those numbers is totally and utterly meaningless which anyone who understands finance knows[/quote]No need for that "T". You will only upset our resident members of the FPA society (fag packet accountants) and the "thick Norfolk people" and "ignorant majority" who listen to them! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YankeeCanary 0 Posted March 11, 2009 [quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"] [quote user="ron obvious"]I don''t know if this is common knowledge, but this seems quite interesting. I can''t seem to do hyperlinks, so you''ll have to copy & paste: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/index.htmIt seems to be a couple of years old, but still informative.Thought - nothing to do with anybody here, is it??[/quote]Thanks for the link ron. I saw that a while back but forgot the addy. I would encourage anyone to read and absorb. One point i`d like to draw attention to is the "Staff and payroll" section which shows player and coach numbers staying roughly level since 1999, but "other staff" numbers doubling. This is one of the clubs biggest problems IMO.[/quote]That is one aspect Mr. Carrow. Another is that the player wage bill, as a percentage of the total wages, tended to average 60% in a fairly narrow band through the years shown, with the 2006 ratio being almost identical to the level five years earlier, despite the playing/coaching staff remaining relatively level in numbers during that time span. It was also stated that Norwich are one of the few clubs showing this kind of transparency. Imagine the difficulty you would have in negatively pulling apart the accounts of most other clubs who don''t even provide that level of transparency.[/quote]You call changing the accounting methods from one year to the next so that no direct comparison might be drawn ''transparent'' YC?Unlike many other clubs in this division NCFC''s accounts cannot be found via Google.[/quote]The Championship clubs I have reviewed showed they have also changed their accounting methods, using international methods ( IFRS ) rather than the UK GAAP methods. Are you also calling into question these Championship clubs that are following such a path? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Fish Seller 0 Posted March 11, 2009 [quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"] [quote user="ron obvious"]I don''t know if this is common knowledge, but this seems quite interesting. I can''t seem to do hyperlinks, so you''ll have to copy & paste: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/index.htmIt seems to be a couple of years old, but still informative.Thought - nothing to do with anybody here, is it??[/quote]Thanks for the link ron. I saw that a while back but forgot the addy. I would encourage anyone to read and absorb. One point i`d like to draw attention to is the "Staff and payroll" section which shows player and coach numbers staying roughly level since 1999, but "other staff" numbers doubling. This is one of the clubs biggest problems IMO.[/quote]That is one aspect Mr. Carrow. Another is that the player wage bill, as a percentage of the total wages, tended to average 60% in a fairly narrow band through the years shown, with the 2006 ratio being almost identical to the level five years earlier, despite the playing/coaching staff remaining relatively level in numbers during that time span. It was also stated that Norwich are one of the few clubs showing this kind of transparency. Imagine the difficulty you would have in negatively pulling apart the accounts of most other clubs who don''t even provide that level of transparency.[/quote]You call changing the accounting methods from one year to the next so that no direct comparison might be drawn ''transparent'' YC?Unlike many other clubs in this division NCFC''s accounts cannot be found via Google.[/quote]The Championship clubs I have reviewed showed they have also changed their accounting methods, using international methods ( IFRS ) rather than the UK GAAP methods. Are you also calling into question these Championship clubs that are following such a path? [/quote]Not at all simply drawing attention to the fact that the claim to transparency enjoyed by the club is in my opinion falsely made. We have a huge amount of debt at the club which doesn''t make the headline figures of the balance sheet. Team wages, team budget and total staff costs are IMO deliberately mis-represented time and again to suit by our CEO. Mr. Doncaster also seems to have adopted a total blackout strategy on player transfer receipts for a couple of years now. Shackell, Etuhu, Francis,Safri, Bell, the list is endless. All we get is an overall figure for profits on player trading. We were promised by Doomy that all proceeds from Etuhu and safri would be re-invested in the squad. We then promptly made yet another profit on player trading in the next window. What''s the point in Doomy making flippant statements when he knows without releasing the figures nobody will ever know if he''s being honest? If there''s nothing to hide then be transparent , tell us how much we received and then we can decide for ourselves if the board kept the pledge. Just saying that whatever else we may or may not be we most certainly are not transparent with the fans in our financial dealings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T 190 Posted March 11, 2009 [quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"] [quote user="ron obvious"]I don''t know if this is common knowledge, but this seems quite interesting. I can''t seem to do hyperlinks, so you''ll have to copy & paste: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/index.htmIt seems to be a couple of years old, but still informative.Thought - nothing to do with anybody here, is it??[/quote]Thanks for the link ron. I saw that a while back but forgot the addy. I would encourage anyone to read and absorb. One point i`d like to draw attention to is the "Staff and payroll" section which shows player and coach numbers staying roughly level since 1999, but "other staff" numbers doubling. This is one of the clubs biggest problems IMO.[/quote]That is one aspect Mr. Carrow. Another is that the player wage bill, as a percentage of the total wages, tended to average 60% in a fairly narrow band through the years shown, with the 2006 ratio being almost identical to the level five years earlier, despite the playing/coaching staff remaining relatively level in numbers during that time span. It was also stated that Norwich are one of the few clubs showing this kind of transparency. Imagine the difficulty you would have in negatively pulling apart the accounts of most other clubs who don''t even provide that level of transparency.[/quote]You call changing the accounting methods from one year to the next so that no direct comparison might be drawn ''transparent'' YC?Unlike many other clubs in this division NCFC''s accounts cannot be found via Google.[/quote]The Championship clubs I have reviewed showed they have also changed their accounting methods, using international methods ( IFRS ) rather than the UK GAAP methods. Are you also calling into question these Championship clubs that are following such a path? [/quote]Not at all simply drawing attention to the fact that the claim to transparency enjoyed by the club is in my opinion falsely made. We have a huge amount of debt at the club which doesn''t make the headline figures of the balance sheet. Team wages, team budget and total staff costs are IMO deliberately mis-represented time and again to suit by our CEO. Mr. Doncaster also seems to have adopted a total blackout strategy on player transfer receipts for a couple of years now. Shackell, Etuhu, Francis,Safri, Bell, the list is endless. All we get is an overall figure for profits on player trading. We were promised by Doomy that all proceeds from Etuhu and safri would be re-invested in the squad. We then promptly made yet another profit on player trading in the next window. What''s the point in Doomy making flippant statements when he knows without releasing the figures nobody will ever know if he''s being honest? If there''s nothing to hide then be transparent , tell us how much we received and then we can decide for ourselves if the board kept the pledge. Just saying that whatever else we may or may not be we most certainly are not transparent with the fans in our financial dealings.[/quote]so you are saying we are no different to any other football club or commercial business which are also reluctant to disclose commercially sensitive information. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites