People complainig about lack of money for signings

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"]

A question related to the match day catering and how it is shown.

When tickets are sold that include meals how is the money apportioned.

Does a sum get taken over to the catering side? What is the % "match" and % "food"

If not the balances shown would not be accurate.

 

[/quote]

Bloomin'' ''eck Butler! Roll on when there''s some football to talk about...

[;)]

 

[/quote]No, No, No........far more interesting talking about the catering. When I go to Carra I often spend the entire match analysing the gross profit on the pies and sometimes don''t bother with the footy at all.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I haven`t advocated outsourcing the catering, i have said that if as T has admitted, profits are "marginal" then we would likely make as much money outsourcing and letting another company worry about the running of the operation.  I have also said that, as again T has accepted, Preston could afford to spend far more of their income on their team in `08 than we could and it might be wise to try to locate the reasons why.  I believe that the most clubs contract out their catering and i think there`s probably a good reason for that.

[/quote]My problem with this is that I don''t believe that "Team Spend as a percentage of Income" (TSpI) is a good measure of how well a club is being run.  For example, say we have some profitable sideline (ie catering or selling replica shirts or anything, what it is is irrelevant) and we put those profits directly into the team.  If we stop doing it, then TSpI actually goes up (with realistic assumptions about values*).  However, this would blatently not make us better run.I find total spend is far more relevant.  Did Preston actually spend more or less in total on their team?  I''ve had a look from last time, but can''t find actual figures. That is surely the most second most important thing.  Behind winning matches of course.*profits from the venture not higher than the new TSpI.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

7rew, Prestons "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was about £5m out of income of £8.5m.  Ours was £1.9m out of £19m.  I think we need to establish why this is.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"]

A question related to the match day catering and how it is shown.

When tickets are sold that include meals how is the money apportioned.

Does a sum get taken over to the catering side? What is the % "match" and % "food"

If not the balances shown would not be accurate.

 

[/quote]

Bloomin'' ''eck Butler! Roll on when there''s some football to talk about...

[;)]

 

[/quote]

No, No, No........far more interesting talking about the catering. When I go to Carra I often spend the entire match analysing the gross profit on the pies and sometimes don''t bother with the footy at all.
[/quote]

Excellent response!

The discussion was to do with out sourcing the catering and costs.

If we can actualy get some facts about other costs we just might find out if/how OUR money has been wasted.

Just interested if one of our tame accountants who check these things knew how the money got split.

I much prefer discussions about players I have never seen and hoped never to see.

Players that will never ever play for us and of course who is shopping in ASDA today.[;)]

[Desert Fox 0]

Big Fish,

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you dont have anything to add, do you have a problem with anyone else trying to get to the heart of one of the core reasons why we are peforming so badly? Yes it may be boring to some, but no one is forced to contribute.

[Desert Fox 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]7rew, Prestons "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was about £5m out of income of £8.5m.  Ours was £1.9m out of £19m.  I think we need to establish why this is.[/quote]

Mr C,

The answer lies in finding out why we have 210 employees. If we assume that the football sqaud and associated coaching, physio, ground staff comes to about 60 staff, what are the remaining 150 doing?

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]7rew, Prestons "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was about £5m out of income of £8.5m.  Ours was £1.9m out of £19m.  I think we need to establish why this is.[/quote]Nope. Your sentance should read: "Prestons playing budget was about £5m.  Our "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was £1.9m.  I think we need

to establish why this is."Or: "Preston''s playing budget was lower than ours, yet we finished below them. I think we need

to establish why this is."What it is out of is a snare and a delusion.  Southampton will have spent the largest slice of their income on their team of any club going, since they (effectively) outsourced everything else to Southampton Leisure Holdings and so the club only spent money on the team.  This did not make them well run!

[T 190]

Mr C _Whilst I''m flattered that you quote me as a source I do feel a little misquoted. I believe that the catering does make a contribution - 700k according to the club although I accept DF''s argument that there are likely to be associated gneral overheads and interest costs which reduce the bottom line contribution. On Preston, we don''t have enough detail to make real comparisons. What I do accept that your analysis did suggest that there is an opportunity to reduce the club''s overheads which means redundancies in non-spin langauge which the club do appear to be looking at.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

Big Fish,

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you dont have anything to add, do you have a problem with anyone else trying to get to the heart of one of the core reasons why we are peforming so badly? Yes it may be boring to some, but no one is forced to contribute.

[/quote]

Yes indeed Desert Fox. But Big Fish''s response and mine too was maybe lighthearted and not meant to offend. To reply to your post I believe that we are often barking up the wrong tree on this and that the core reason why we are performing so badly is entirely football related. It''s not so much about lack of money in the player budget but more about wasted money in the player budget.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]7rew, Prestons "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was about £5m out of income of £8.5m.  Ours was £1.9m out of £19m.  I think we need to establish why this is.[/quote]

Nope.

Your sentance should read: "Prestons playing budget was about £5m.  Our "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was £1.9m.  I think we need to establish why this is."
Or: "Preston''s playing budget was lower than ours, yet we finished below them. I think we need to establish why this is."

What it is out of is a snare and a delusion.  Southampton will have spent the largest slice of their income on their team of any club going, since they (effectively) outsourced everything else to Southampton Leisure Holdings and so the club only spent money on the team.  This did not make them well run!
[/quote]

No 7rew, Prestons playing budget was about £8m which is why they made a £3m or so operating loss.  They could AFFORD a £5m budget to break even as even T has accepted.  That is a great deal more than ours; why do you think this is?

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Desert Fox"]

Big Fish,

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you dont have anything to add, do you have a problem with anyone else trying to get to the heart of one of the core reasons why we are peforming so badly? Yes it may be boring to some, but no one is forced to contribute.

[/quote]

Yes indeed Desert Fox. But Big Fish''s response and mine too was maybe lighthearted and not meant to offend. To reply to your post I believe that we are often barking up the wrong tree on this and that the core reason why we are performing so badly is entirely football related. It''s not so much about lack of money in the player budget but more about wasted money in the player budget.

 

[/quote]

Would it not be nice for our managers to have even more money to waste on even more rubisher players?

Get your priorities right Nutty. Your holidays has gone to your head.[:D]

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]7rew, Prestons "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was about £5m out of income of £8.5m.  Ours was £1.9m out of £19m.  I think we need to establish why this is.[/quote]

Nope.

Your sentance should read: "Prestons playing budget was about £5m.  Our "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was £1.9m.  I think we need to establish why this is."
Or: "Preston''s playing budget was lower than ours, yet we finished below them. I think we need to establish why this is."

What it is out of is a snare and a delusion.  Southampton will have spent the largest slice of their income on their team of any club going, since they (effectively) outsourced everything else to Southampton Leisure Holdings and so the club only spent money on the team.  This did not make them well run!
[/quote]

No 7rew, Prestons playing budget was about £8m which is why they made a £3m or so operating loss.  They could AFFORD a £5m budget to break even as even T has accepted.  That is a great deal more than ours; why do you think this is?

[/quote]

 

Partly I think as they have been bankrolled to an extent by a benefactor to paid some funds into a trust for them (although i don''t think this was any more than the money put in by DS and MJW last season) but if I recall correctly (and I think this is what you are getting at) one of the key differences was that Preston only have something like 27 "non-footballing" staff whereas we had about 180. I guess the costs of that needs to be balanced against the benefits. I assume they outsource both catering and stewarding.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]7rew, Prestons "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was about £5m out of income of £8.5m.  Ours was £1.9m out of £19m.  I think we need to establish why this is.[/quote]Nope. Your sentance should read: "Prestons playing budget was about £5m.  Our "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was £1.9m.  I think we need to establish why this is."Or: "Preston''s playing budget was lower than ours, yet we finished below them. I think we need to establish why this is."What it is out of is a snare and a delusion.  Southampton will have spent the largest slice of their income on their team of any club going, since they (effectively) outsourced everything else to Southampton Leisure Holdings and so the club only spent money on the team.  This did not make them well run![/quote]

No 7rew, Prestons playing budget was about £8m which is why they made a £3m or so operating loss.  They could AFFORD a £5m budget to break even as even T has accepted.  That is a great deal more than ours; why do you think this is?

[/quote]I have no idea. Still, nice to see you are asking the right question now.  Maybe you can find out.  Does the second question still hold or not?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]7rew, Prestons "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was about £5m out of income of £8.5m.  Ours was £1.9m out of £19m.  I think we need to establish why this is.[/quote]

Nope.

Your sentance should read: "Prestons playing budget was about £5m.  Our "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was £1.9m.  I think we need to establish why this is."
Or: "Preston''s playing budget was lower than ours, yet we finished below them. I think we need to establish why this is."

What it is out of is a snare and a delusion.  Southampton will have spent the largest slice of their income on their team of any club going, since they (effectively) outsourced everything else to Southampton Leisure Holdings and so the club only spent money on the team.  This did not make them well run!
[/quote]

No 7rew, Prestons playing budget was about £8m which is why they made a £3m or so operating loss.  They could AFFORD a £5m budget to break even as even T has accepted.  That is a great deal more than ours; why do you think this is?

[/quote]

I have no idea. Still, nice to see you are asking the right question now.  Maybe you can find out.  Does the second question still hold or not?
[/quote]

It`s the question i`ve been asking all along 7rew.  Still, nice to see you`ve stopped making stuff up just because you don`t like the picture the facts paint.  The second question holds if you can, for once, actually do some research and come up with some facts to support your argument rather than jump to assumptions that you find easy to digest.....

[ACE 0]

Surely our budget is lower because we are havin to syphon cash off to pay that massive secured debt all the time?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]7rew, Prestons "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was about £5m out of income of £8.5m.  Ours was £1.9m out of £19m.  I think we need to establish why this is.[/quote]

Nope.

Your sentance should read: "Prestons playing budget was about £5m.  Our "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was £1.9m.  I think we need to establish why this is."
Or: "Preston''s playing budget was lower than ours, yet we finished below them. I think we need to establish why this is."

What it is out of is a snare and a delusion.  Southampton will have spent the largest slice of their income on their team of any club going, since they (effectively) outsourced everything else to Southampton Leisure Holdings and so the club only spent money on the team.  This did not make them well run!
[/quote]

No 7rew, Prestons playing budget was about £8m which is why they made a £3m or so operating loss.  They could AFFORD a £5m budget to break even as even T has accepted.  That is a great deal more than ours; why do you think this is?

[/quote]

 

Partly I think as they have been bankrolled to an extent by a benefactor to paid some funds into a trust for them (although i don''t think this was any more than the money put in by DS and MJW last season) but if I recall correctly (and I think this is what you are getting at) one of the key differences was that Preston only have something like 27 "non-footballing" staff whereas we had about 180. I guess the costs of that needs to be balanced against the benefits. I assume they outsource both catering and stewarding.

[/quote]

Yep, i think they can afford to take the hit of bigger losses because of the investment they`ve had.  That still doesn`t change the fact that they can afford a much bigger playing budget out of much lower income, and i agree that the main problem seems to be the number of non-football employees. 

From memory, their non player-wage costs were £2m, ours were £17m.  Of course the stock response on here is "If we employ all those extra people, they must be bringing in extra income for the club".  Well, anyone comparing our 2008 accounts with Prestons and coming to that conclusion would have to be totally blinkered because it is clearly rubbish.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Get your priorities right Nutty. Your holidays has gone to your head.[:D]

[/quote]

Priorities is an interesting point Butler my friend. One of our recent managers took a look at the player budget presented to him and made it a priority to spend 1m on a promising up and coming goalkeeper. It''s quite beyond me how he worked that one out when we already had a promising up and coming goalkeeper who cost us nothing but there we go. I would suggest that million pounds and the associated wages could have made quite a difference to the following seasons player budget.

 

[T 190]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]7rew, Prestons "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was about £5m out of income of £8.5m.  Ours was £1.9m out of £19m.  I think we need to establish why this is.[/quote]

Nope.

Your sentance should read: "Prestons playing budget was about £5m.  Our "affordable" playing budget (ie. to break even) was £1.9m.  I think we need to establish why this is."
Or: "Preston''s playing budget was lower than ours, yet we finished below them. I think we need to establish why this is."

What it is out of is a snare and a delusion.  Southampton will have spent the largest slice of their income on their team of any club going, since they (effectively) outsourced everything else to Southampton Leisure Holdings and so the club only spent money on the team.  This did not make them well run!
[/quote]

No 7rew, Prestons playing budget was about £8m which is why they made a £3m or so operating loss.  They could AFFORD a £5m budget to break even as even T has accepted.  That is a great deal more than ours; why do you think this is?

[/quote]

 

 

 

Partly I think as they have been bankrolled to an extent by a benefactor to paid some funds into a trust for them (although i don''t think this was any more than the money put in by DS and MJW last season) but if I recall correctly (and I think this is what you are getting at) one of the key differences was that Preston only have something like 27 "non-footballing" staff whereas we had about 180. I guess the costs of that needs to be balanced against the benefits. I assume they outsource both catering and stewarding.

[/quote]

Yep, i think they can afford to take the hit of bigger losses because of the investment they`ve had.  That still doesn`t change the fact that they can afford a much bigger playing budget out of much lower income, and i agree that the main problem seems to be the number of non-football employees. 

From memory, their non player-wage costs were £2m, ours were £17m.  Of course the stock response on here is "If we employ all those extra people, they must be bringing in extra income for the club".  Well, anyone comparing our 2008 accounts with Prestons and coming to that conclusion would have to be totally blinkered because it is clearly rubbish.

[/quote]

As blinkered someone who ignores the general best practice in financial matters?

as blinkered as someone who looks at the costs but ignores the associated revenues?

as blinkered as someone who ignores Preston''s links with the FA?

as blinkered as someone who ignores Preston''s cash flows which show the money from sales of players and cash injections from a very wealthy benefactors?

as blinkered as someone who says it is fine to compare with one other club when the other club are doing well such as Preston but not when that other other club like Southampton is doing badly?

as blinkered as someone who ignores that we had the 8th highest player budget in the CCC according to an anti-ncfc poster

or as blinkered as someone who ignores the views on football finance of Peter Cullum, the chairman of the football league and the leading independent report on football finance?

Welcome to the world of the ncisa and their lackey''s - if you have no real understanding of football, business, the media and finance, enjoy whinging about something that you no nothing about and could not hope to do yourself then please apply.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Calm down T, none of those accusations apply to me so how about we stick to the facts rather than set up yet another made-up straw man argument?  You lost the argument on the Preston thread- time to grow up and accept it.

By the way, you haven`t answered my question about your own financial contribution to the club on another thread?

Anyways, as much as i`m sure people are rivetted by this spat with two people who are too arrogant to ever admit they`ve got it wrong even if it`s proved so 1000 times, i`m off to Latitude to drink beer and have a good time.  Enjoy your weekends....[Y]

[T 190]

Now, now that was no fun at all and besides I didn''t name any names. I couldn''t possible accept I lost the Preston argument - I just said there maybe an opportunity to cut costs that was all which seems to be happening which is never nice for the poor individuals involved.

I thought everyone knew I''m really ND and I get my tickets for free, although there might be an alternative explanation.

Will enjoy my Saturday afternoons a liitle more if we start winning a few more games whatever league we are in and whatever DF thinks.

Looks like a good line up at Latitude - it seems you may be a younger miserable git than I imagined.