The worrying truth . . . We need investment or it could all go tits up

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="City1st"]" to remind fans that we are a club owned by paupers in a financially unforgiving league."

more old sh ite

you may wish to put the boot in via some pompous guff preceding it but the facts state different

check what our income will be then measure it against the rest of the league via the 2011/12 figures

we will be easily around or just outside the top ten


take a look down the A140 and guess the supposed wealth of the ral paupers owners, then tell us if matters what wealth they have, likewise Aston Villa

it is what money the club have to spend that counts if you are solely measuring like for like



[/quote]

 

City1st has helpfully emphasised the question of turnover (ie income) and how we compare with the rest of the Premier League. Figures are not yet available for this season just finished. For 2010-11 it was as follows. Total turnover was £2.28bn, giving an average of £114m, Our predicted (by the club) turnover for this season is £64m. I suspect it may be closer to £70m. Split the difference a bit and assume a figure of around £67m or so. Then rewrite history and plonk us in the PL in that season 2010-11 as an extra club with our 2011-12 turnover. Twelve clubs would definitely be above us (some absurdly so) and five a bit below (Wigan being the lowest at £51m) and three around the same. Bolton with £68m, Stoke with £67m and Wolves with £64m.

This season just gone? Overall turnover in the PL has almost certainly increased. General inflation, higher ticket prices etc. So our £67m (?) turnover would be further adrift of the average. As to which clubs might be below or level with or a bit above us, it is fair to assume they would include Swansea, Wigan, WBA, Blackburn, QPR, Bolton, and Wolves. Presumably now not Stoke, though, with the Europa League nonsense.

So a below halfway position (say around 14th to 16th) in the turnover table. But then some of those clubs around us have much richer owners. Such as Wigan, quite possibly again the bottom club in turnover, and which makes a loss year in, year out. As the chief executive has just said:

"We continue to strive to maintain our position in the Premier League by significant investment in the playing squad while, at the same time, employing prudent financial management to ensure the club''s long-term stability. This position would not have been possible without the continued financial support of chairman David Whelan."

In other words, Wigan may be below us in the turnover table but the wealth of the owner more than makes up for that. The same goes for other clubs, such as QPR, with whom we are competing. Next season West Ham will be above us in terms of turnover and wealth. That is why, unfortunately, it is highly relevant that we have paupers for owners. That fact combined with a low turnover figure makes PL survival an uphill (although not impossible) battle. At least until Financial Fair Play comes in. But that, of course, is based on not spending more than your genuine income, as opposed to false income from rich owners. So even then - at least until we increase stadium capacity - we will be markedly below the average.

[Bill 1,788]

The 2010/11 figures are hereI would suggest our income is certainly above £67m as the TV/prize money at £45m plus less seasons income gives £68m, and I think we can presume that sponsorshop/adverising/corporate hospitality, higher ticket prices have pushed that figure up quite a bit.That would put us around 11th or 12th in the income table ... hardly paupersBut the argument is that other clubs have rich benefactors who are pumping millions upon millions into their club leaving us left adrift. Another bit of twaddle designed to put our club in a bad light. As with the real paupers down the road the actual figures being lent to various clubs are not necessarily those what are being touted. Despite the rustics squeaking about the billions Evans was pouring in, the accounts showed different - in fact they showed excessive interest charges which as they couldn''t be paid were being greated as an ''hinvestment''.The term pauper is relative. I doubt anyone ever expected us to be able to compete with the big clubs, but we are certainly holding our own with our peers. Which begs the question of why certain posters seem to want to show the club in a bad light, consistently.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="City1st"]The 2010/11 figures are hereI would suggest our income is certainly above £67m as the TV/prize money at £45m plus less seasons income gives £68m, and I think we can presume that sponsorshop/adverising/corporate hospitality, higher ticket prices have pushed that figure up quite a bit.That would put us around 11th or 12th in the income table ... hardly paupersBut the argument is that other clubs have rich benefactors who are pumping millions upon millions into their club leaving us left adrift. Another bit of twaddle designed to put our club in a bad light. As with the real paupers down the road the actual figures being lent to various clubs are not necessarily those what are being touted. Despite the rustics squeaking about the billions Evans was pouring in, the accounts showed different - in fact they showed excessive interest charges which as they couldn''t be paid were being greated as an ''hinvestment''.The term pauper is relative. I doubt anyone ever expected us to be able to compete with the big clubs, but we are certainly holding our own with our peers. Which begs the question of why certain posters seem to want to show the club in a bad light, consistently.

[/quote]

 

Not all clubs with with wealthy owner will prosper I agree and you give a perfect example but you cannot deny that the clubs which have internal debt, for example Wigan, who have little external debt which has to be paid back within strict timefames can use more of their turnover on wages/signings and are therefore are at an advantage due to their wealthy owners. Its just as much about how a club can choose to spend its turnover as the amount of turnover.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

So a below halfway position (say around 14th to 16th) in the turnover table. But then some of those clubs around us have much richer owners. Such as Wigan, quite possibly again the bottom club in turnover, and which makes a loss year in, year out. As the chief executive has just said:

"We continue to strive to maintain our position in the Premier League by significant investment in the playing squad while, at the same time, employing prudent financial management to ensure the club''s long-term stability. This position would not have been possible without the continued financial support of chairman David Whelan."

In other words, Wigan may be below us in the turnover table but the wealth of the owner more than makes up for that. The same goes for other clubs, such as QPR, with whom we are competing. Next season West Ham will be above us in terms of turnover and wealth. That is why, unfortunately, it is highly relevant that we have paupers for owners. That fact combined with a low turnover figure makes PL survival an uphill (although not impossible) battle. At least until Financial Fair Play comes in. But that, of course, is based on not spending more than your genuine income, as opposed to false income from rich owners. So even then - at least until we increase stadium capacity - we will be markedly below the average.

[/quote]

 

Do you know how much this financial support is Purple? It may be that even with Whelan''s support Wigan still can''t match us? But whatever their model is unsustainable. And without being unkind Whelan''s not a young man. Look what happened at Blackburn. I''ve noticed, or I think I''ve noticed, that since McNally''s been calling the shots Delia''s top ups have stopped. This can only be good because that wasn''t sustainable either.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

So a below halfway position (say around 14th to 16th) in the turnover table. But then some of those clubs around us have much richer owners. Such as Wigan, quite possibly again the bottom club in turnover, and which makes a loss year in, year out. As the chief executive has just said:

"We continue to strive to maintain our position in the Premier League by significant investment in the playing squad while, at the same time, employing prudent financial management to ensure the club''s long-term stability. This position would not have been possible without the continued financial support of chairman David Whelan."

In other words, Wigan may be below us in the turnover table but the wealth of the owner more than makes up for that. The same goes for other clubs, such as QPR, with whom we are competing. Next season West Ham will be above us in terms of turnover and wealth. That is why, unfortunately, it is highly relevant that we have paupers for owners. That fact combined with a low turnover figure makes PL survival an uphill (although not impossible) battle. At least until Financial Fair Play comes in. But that, of course, is based on not spending more than your genuine income, as opposed to false income from rich owners. So even then - at least until we increase stadium capacity - we will be markedly below the average.

[/quote]

 

Do you know how much this financial support is Purple? It may be that even with Whelan''s support Wigan still can''t match us? But whatever their model is unsustainable. And without being unkind Whelan''s not a young man. Look what happened at Blackburn. I''ve noticed, or I think I''ve noticed, that since McNally''s been calling the shots Delia''s top ups have stopped. This can only be good because that wasn''t sustainable either.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Firstly, nutty, as to Delia''s top-ups having stopped. Yes, but that may be coincidental. I don''t recall McNally throwing back the £2m Foulger was trying to give the club...[;)]

As to Whelan, I don''t know the precise amount. But I do know he paid for their stadium (around £25m-£30m) and last year wrote off (by converting into shares) £48m he had lent the club. So it is by any measure a substantial amount.

I agree entirely that kind of model is not sustainable for Wigan (and others) in the long run. But the FFP rules are supposed to outlaw it anyway. We shall see if they work. If so, good news for us, of course. But only to a point. Holtgate MAY be an indication that we are already hitting our head against the earnings glass ceiling. We can up ticket prices (although for next season our cheapest season ticket price is the 7th highest in the PL, according to Guardian figures) and food and drink. And TV revenues can increase a bit. But most of that is at the margins, unless we start qualifying for Europe. The low capacity of Carrow Road is the problem. Which is why the board so badly want it increased.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

So a below halfway position (say around 14th to 16th) in the turnover table. But then some of those clubs around us have much richer owners. Such as Wigan, quite possibly again the bottom club in turnover, and which makes a loss year in, year out. As the chief executive has just said:"We continue to strive to maintain our position in the Premier League by significant investment in the playing squad while, at the same time, employing prudent financial management to ensure the club''s long-term stability. This position would not have been possible without the continued financial support of chairman David Whelan."In other words, Wigan may be below us in the turnover table but the wealth of the owner more than makes up for that. The same goes for other clubs, such as QPR, with whom we are competing. Next season West Ham will be above us in terms of turnover and wealth. That is why, unfortunately, it is highly relevant that we have paupers for owners. That fact combined with a low turnover figure makes PL survival an uphill (although not impossible) battle. At least until Financial Fair Play comes in. But that, of course, is based on not spending more than your genuine income, as opposed to false income from rich owners. So even then - at least until we increase stadium capacity - we will be markedly below the average.

[/quote]

 

Do you know how much this financial support is Purple? It may be that even with Whelan''s support Wigan still can''t match us? But whatever their model is unsustainable. And without being unkind Whelan''s not a young man. Look what happened at Blackburn. I''ve noticed, or I think I''ve noticed, that since McNally''s been calling the shots Delia''s top ups have stopped. This can only be good because that wasn''t sustainable either.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Firstly, nutty, as to Delia''s top-ups having stopped. Yes, but that may be coincidental. I don''t recall McNally throwing back the £2m Foulger was trying to give the club...[;)]As to Whelan, I don''t know the precise amount. But I do know he paid for their stadium (around £25m-£30m) and last year wrote off (by converting into shares) £48m he had lent the club. So it is by any measure a substantial amount.I agree entirely that kind of model is not sustainable for Wigan (and others) in the long run. But the FFP rules are supposed to outlaw it anyway. We shall see if they work. If so, good news for us, of course. But only to a point. Holtgate MAY be an indication that we are already hitting our head against the earnings glass ceiling. We can up ticket prices (although for next season our cheapest season ticket price is the 7th highest in the PL, according to Guardian figures) and food and drink. And TV revenues can increase a bit. But most of that is at the margins, unless we start qualifying for Europe. The low capacity of Carrow Road is the problem. Which is why the board so badly want it increased.

[/quote]

Provided we remain in the premiership I would think that we will be in a pretty strong position when the FFP comes in and should be able to gradually ramp up wages over the next 2 or 3 years to a level where we are competitive, based on an approx turnover of £70 million and debt free. I would assume that as a ballpark figure 50% of turnover might be an appropriate sort of cap for the wages?

[T 190]

Money put in by owners up until last season: Bolton 85m, Fulham 187m, Wigan 52m, Wolves 30m,Villa 206m, Blackburn 104m,Newcastle 140m, Stoke 43m Sunderland 115m

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

So a below halfway position (say around 14th to 16th) in the turnover table. But then some of those clubs around us have much richer owners. Such as Wigan, quite possibly again the bottom club in turnover, and which makes a loss year in, year out. As the chief executive has just said:

"We continue to strive to maintain our position in the Premier League by significant investment in the playing squad while, at the same time, employing prudent financial management to ensure the club''s long-term stability. This position would not have been possible without the continued financial support of chairman David Whelan."

In other words, Wigan may be below us in the turnover table but the wealth of the owner more than makes up for that. The same goes for other clubs, such as QPR, with whom we are competing. Next season West Ham will be above us in terms of turnover and wealth. That is why, unfortunately, it is highly relevant that we have paupers for owners. That fact combined with a low turnover figure makes PL survival an uphill (although not impossible) battle. At least until Financial Fair Play comes in. But that, of course, is based on not spending more than your genuine income, as opposed to false income from rich owners. So even then - at least until we increase stadium capacity - we will be markedly below the average.

[/quote]

 

Do you know how much this financial support is Purple? It may be that even with Whelan''s support Wigan still can''t match us? But whatever their model is unsustainable. And without being unkind Whelan''s not a young man. Look what happened at Blackburn. I''ve noticed, or I think I''ve noticed, that since McNally''s been calling the shots Delia''s top ups have stopped. This can only be good because that wasn''t sustainable either.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Firstly, nutty, as to Delia''s top-ups having stopped. Yes, but that may be coincidental. I don''t recall McNally throwing back the £2m Foulger was trying to give the club...[;)]

As to Whelan, I don''t know the precise amount. But I do know he paid for their stadium (around £25m-£30m) and last year wrote off (by converting into shares) £48m he had lent the club. So it is by any measure a substantial amount.

I agree entirely that kind of model is not sustainable for Wigan (and others) in the long run. But the FFP rules are supposed to outlaw it anyway. We shall see if they work. If so, good news for us, of course. But only to a point. Holtgate MAY be an indication that we are already hitting our head against the earnings glass ceiling. We can up ticket prices (although for next season our cheapest season ticket price is the 7th highest in the PL, according to Guardian figures) and food and drink. And TV revenues can increase a bit. But most of that is at the margins, unless we start qualifying for Europe. The low capacity of Carrow Road is the problem. Which is why the board so badly want it increased.

[/quote]

Provided we remain in the premiership I would think that we will be in a pretty strong position when the FFP comes in and should be able to gradually ramp up wages over the next 2 or 3 years to a level where we are competitive, based on an approx turnover of £70 million and debt free. I would assume that as a ballpark figure 50% of turnover might be an appropriate sort of cap for the wages?

[/quote]

 

Jim, frankly I suspect everyone is rather in the dark until the rules comes in but you could well be right. Supposedly Arsenal would currently comply with FFP, and their wage bill for the 2010-11 season was 48 per cent of turnover. And that was equal second-lowest, with Blackpool. Only Man Utd at 46 per cent were lower.

[T 190]

I understand FFP will still allow €15m a year of subsidies from owner plus paying for academy and capex so not convinced it will help us.

[BigFish 1,986]

All very interesting but to bring this thread back on topic the question is really even if we had the cash should we pay the current crop of players more just to keep them.

Now I suspect the players, or rather their agents, know very well what they are worth on the open market and if they thought they could get it many of them would be off faster than you could say "loyalty".

Many employees think they deserve more but the fact that there is deadly silence when it comes to suitors for our squad would seem to indicate that McNally might have got the balance dead right or possibly with some of the squad (you can pick the names) may already be paying over the odds.

Now it may start to look like Grant Holt has been a very silly boy and his own estimation might not be shared by Lambert, McNally or any other club.

[Monty13 2,229]

With the Financial Fair play rules agreed on by the Championship Clubs this April here was a quick breakdown I found of those rules:

Owners will be allowed to invest £6m next season, £5m the year after, then £3m in the 2014-15 season.

From 2015-16, clubs will be allowed to make a £2m operating loss, as well accept a £3m investment from an owner - allowing for a £5m overall loss.

Clubs promoted to the Premier League that fail to adhere to the amendments must pay a fair-play tax on their losses, ranging from 1% on the first £100,000 to 100% on anything over £10m.

The thing I can''t find out is are the rules affecting clubs promoted to the premier league in place for those promoted next year or not until those promoted 2015-2016 season?

Because if it affects clubs promoted next season, assuming we stay up, their wont be a QPR equivalent to compete with coming up unless that owner is also prepared to pay millions in fines.

Personally much more excited by the thought of FFP rules finally being imposed than us getting investment from a rich individual.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

So a below halfway position (say around 14th to 16th) in the turnover table. But then some of those clubs around us have much richer owners. Such as Wigan, quite possibly again the bottom club in turnover, and which makes a loss year in, year out. As the chief executive has just said:"We continue to strive to maintain our position in the Premier League by significant investment in the playing squad while, at the same time, employing prudent financial management to ensure the club''s long-term stability. This position would not have been possible without the continued financial support of chairman David Whelan."In other words, Wigan may be below us in the turnover table but the wealth of the owner more than makes up for that. The same goes for other clubs, such as QPR, with whom we are competing. Next season West Ham will be above us in terms of turnover and wealth. That is why, unfortunately, it is highly relevant that we have paupers for owners. That fact combined with a low turnover figure makes PL survival an uphill (although not impossible) battle. At least until Financial Fair Play comes in. But that, of course, is based on not spending more than your genuine income, as opposed to false income from rich owners. So even then - at least until we increase stadium capacity - we will be markedly below the average.

[/quote]

 

Do you know how much this financial support is Purple? It may be that even with Whelan''s support Wigan still can''t match us? But whatever their model is unsustainable. And without being unkind Whelan''s not a young man. Look what happened at Blackburn. I''ve noticed, or I think I''ve noticed, that since McNally''s been calling the shots Delia''s top ups have stopped. This can only be good because that wasn''t sustainable either.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Firstly, nutty, as to Delia''s top-ups having stopped. Yes, but that may be coincidental. I don''t recall McNally throwing back the £2m Foulger was trying to give the club...[;)]As to Whelan, I don''t know the precise amount. But I do know he paid for their stadium (around £25m-£30m) and last year wrote off (by converting into shares) £48m he had lent the club. So it is by any measure a substantial amount.I agree entirely that kind of model is not sustainable for Wigan (and others) in the long run. But the FFP rules are supposed to outlaw it anyway. We shall see if they work. If so, good news for us, of course. But only to a point. Holtgate MAY be an indication that we are already hitting our head against the earnings glass ceiling. We can up ticket prices (although for next season our cheapest season ticket price is the 7th highest in the PL, according to Guardian figures) and food and drink. And TV revenues can increase a bit. But most of that is at the margins, unless we start qualifying for Europe. The low capacity of Carrow Road is the problem. Which is why the board so badly want it increased.

[/quote]

Provided we remain in the premiership I would think that we will be in a pretty strong position when the FFP comes in and should be able to gradually ramp up wages over the next 2 or 3 years to a level where we are competitive, based on an approx turnover of £70 million and debt free. I would assume that as a ballpark figure 50% of turnover might be an appropriate sort of cap for the wages?

[/quote]

 

Jim, frankly I suspect everyone is rather in the dark until the rules comes in but you could well be right. Supposedly Arsenal would currently comply with FFP, and their wage bill for the 2010-11 season was 48 per cent of turnover. And that was equal second-lowest, with Blackpool. Only Man Utd at 46 per cent were lower.

[/quote]

 

If thats the case then Purple we probably currently have the lowest wages to turnover ratio in the prem if the figures you have estimated previously are in the right ballpark. Probably under 30%? Shows what a difficult balance it is because whilst we obviously have to be prudent and pay off the debts you could argue that this places us at a significant disadvantage when compared with similar sized clubs in the prem!

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="Monty13"]

With the Financial Fair play rules agreed on by the Championship Clubs this April here was a quick breakdown I found of those rules:

Owners will be allowed to invest £6m next season, £5m the year after, then £3m in the 2014-15 season.

From 2015-16, clubs will be allowed to make a £2m operating loss, as well accept a £3m investment from an owner - allowing for a £5m overall loss.

Clubs promoted to the Premier League that fail to adhere to the amendments must pay a fair-play tax on their losses, ranging from 1% on the first £100,000 to 100% on anything over £10m.

The thing I can''t find out is are the rules affecting clubs promoted to the premier league in place for those promoted next year or not until those promoted 2015-2016 season?

Because if it affects clubs promoted next season, assuming we stay up, their wont be a QPR equivalent to compete with coming up unless that owner is also prepared to pay millions in fines.

There are going to be different rules for the premiership I think - imposed by UEFA and if you don;t comply then you can''t play in European competitions. What i''m not sure of though is what the sanctions would be for clubs in the prem who don''t qualify for europre if they don;t comply. For example could a club break the UEFA FFP rules in order to avoid relegation from the prem and escape sanction?

 

Personally much more excited by the thought of FFP rules finally being imposed than us getting investment from a rich individual.

[/quote]

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="Monty13"]

With the Financial Fair play rules agreed on by the Championship Clubs this April here was a quick breakdown I found of those rules:

Owners will be allowed to invest £6m next season, £5m the year after, then £3m in the 2014-15 season.

From 2015-16, clubs will be allowed to make a £2m operating loss, as well accept a £3m investment from an owner - allowing for a £5m overall loss.

Clubs promoted to the Premier League that fail to adhere to the amendments must pay a fair-play tax on their losses, ranging from 1% on the first £100,000 to 100% on anything over £10m.

The thing I can''t find out is are the rules affecting clubs promoted to the premier league in place for those promoted next year or not until those promoted 2015-2016 season?

Because if it affects clubs promoted next season, assuming we stay up, their wont be a QPR equivalent to compete with coming up unless that owner is also prepared to pay millions in fines.

There are going to be different rules for the premiership I think - imposed by UEFA and if you don;t comply then you can''t play in European competitions. What i''m not sure of though is what the sanctions would be for clubs in the prem who don''t qualify for europre if they don;t comply. For example could a club break the UEFA FFP rules in order to avoid relegation from the prem and escape sanction?

 

Personally much more excited by the thought of FFP rules finally being imposed than us getting investment from a rich individual.

[/quote][/quote]

 

There are going to be different rules for the premiership I think - imposed by UEFA and if you don;t comply then you can''t play in European competitions. What i''m not sure of though is what the sanctions would be for clubs in the prem who don''t qualify for europre if they don;t comply. For example could a club break the UEFA FFP rules in order to avoid relegation from the prem and escape sanction?

[a1canary 0]

All of which is highly relevant to Fat Tony and the ''Arrrrs.

I''d like to know the level of subsidy the are getting to cover the ridiculous wages of Barton, Zamora and co. If the only punishment is you can''t play in Europe it''s going to be completely irrelevant to them.

Our stadium capacity/attendance may be an issue but it''s actually enough to put us well in to mid table. With FFP (enforced), their idiotic wage structure and that pathetic garden shed they play at, they''re never going to compete.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="a1canary"]All of which is highly relevant to Fat Tony and the ''Arrrrs.

I''d like to know the level of subsidy the are getting to cover the ridiculous wages of Barton, Zamora and co. If the only punishment is you can''t play in Europe it''s going to be completely irrelevant to them.

Our stadium capacity/attendance may be an issue but it''s actually enough to put us well in to mid table. With FFP (enforced), their idiotic wage structure and that pathetic garden shed they play at, they''re never going to compete.[/quote]

Sadly their turnover wont be much less than ours as gate receipts don;t make that much difference these days. In fact it will probably be more than ours as (almost certainly with a view to the FFP rules) fat Tony''s airline is n ow sponsoring QPR and I would suggest that deal will inflate their income somewhat!

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

If thats the case then Purple we probably currently have the lowest wages to turnover ratio in the prem if the figures you have estimated previously are in the right ballpark. Probably under 30%? Shows what a difficult balance it is because whilst we obviously have to be prudent and pay off the debts you could argue that this places us at a significant disadvantage when compared with similar sized clubs in the prem!

[/quote]

 

Jim, there is some doubt about the figures used to ilustrate this nationally. I believe the figures used by The Guardian, for example, and others for the wage to turnover ratio are for ALL wages. ie, not just player wages. The reason being that club accounts tend not to give a specific figure for the player wages to turnover ratio. But in the Premier League the bulk of a club''s wage bill is taken up with player wages, so the two figures are possibly not that far apart.


As for Norwich the accounts DO give a specific player-wage to turnover ratio. Last season, ie in the Championship, it was 47 per cent. But whether that is the right figure to compare with that given for other clubs I doubt. It suspect it should be our overall wage to turnover ratio, which was no less than 79 per cent.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

[quote user="a1canary"]All of which is highly relevant to Fat Tony and the ''Arrrrs. I''d like to know the level of subsidy the are getting to cover the ridiculous wages of Barton, Zamora and co. If the only punishment is you can''t play in Europe it''s going to be completely irrelevant to them. Our stadium capacity/attendance may be an issue but it''s actually enough to put us well in to mid table. With FFP (enforced), their idiotic wage structure and that pathetic garden shed they play at, they''re never going to compete.[/quote]

Sadly their turnover wont be much less than ours as gate receipts don;t make that much difference these days. In fact it will probably be more than ours as (almost certainly with a view to the FFP rules) fat Tony''s airline is n ow sponsoring QPR and I would suggest that deal will inflate their income somewhat!

[/quote]

 

So spending money on a new stand rather than the team would be madness? The way I see it is the financial difference between a few final league positions is much more than the income from a new stand.

 

 

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

I know this is based on unknowns but say with a bigger capacity we averaged 4,000 more in attendances.  At an average of just £25 a ticket and only for league games would yield £1.9m in revenue a season.  Obviously attendances may be higher and I don''t know what average ticket prices would be in 3 or 4 years including kids and concessions etc.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Obviously if we went on a good cup run or made the Europa League then the figures would be even better.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

I know this is based on unknowns but say with a bigger capacity we averaged 4,000 more in attendances.  At an average of just £25 a ticket and only for league games would yield £1.9m in revenue a season.  Obviously attendances may be higher and I don''t know what average ticket prices would be in 3 or 4 years including kids and concessions etc.

[/quote]

It wouldn''t because if a ticket is sold for £25 the club don''t get £25. Then if we finished 16th instead of 12th due to taking money away from the team we''d lose another 3m or so.

 

 

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

I know this is based on unknowns but say with a bigger capacity we averaged 4,000 more in attendances.  At an average of just £25 a ticket and only for league games would yield £1.9m in revenue a season.  Obviously attendances may be higher and I don''t know what average ticket prices would be in 3 or 4 years including kids and concessions etc.

[/quote]

It wouldn''t because if a ticket is sold for £25 the club don''t get £25. Then if we finished 16th instead of 12th due to taking money away from the team we''d lose another 3m or so.

 

 

[/quote]

 

What would the club get?  Are you talking about costs involved etc?  I did use the word revenue deliberately[:)]

 

Not only did I not include cup games etc, I also didn''t include any other sources of income from any additional fans such as refreshments food, club shop etc etc  I don''t know what the average fan spends on such games, obviously the club would have those figures.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

OK, let''s look at it a different way. What is more lucrative, a thousand more seats or a league position?

 

 

[a1canary 0]

The difference between our and QPRs avg attendance is over 9k - even with higher ticket prices that''s worth a lot more to us I would say.

The point about the sponsorship deal is a good one though. There is a handy way round FFP for an owner. Just sponsor the team and pay way over the odds and přesto - a cheeky backdoor subsidy! Having said that only the away shirts have his airline on them. The home shirt is Malaysia Airlines which is the national carrier, not owned by Fernandes.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

OK, let''s look at it a different way. What is more lucrative, a thousand more seats or a league position?

 

 

[/quote]

 

Nutty in answer to your question in the short term clearly league position is more important to us which is why i think the Club''s current approach of adding a bit of extra capacity where we can but putting the vast majority of our resources into the team is correct. Certainly until we are more established at this level and have built a squad of premiership players. At the moment £3-4m = another player for us and we need all the money we can to build our squad.

If we stay up here, however, there will hopefully come a point where wholesale changes to the squad every summer are not necessary and where the finanical situation is such that we can afford to spend £4-5m on a ground extension without it prejudicing or hindering squad development and thats when we shoudl expand the ground as long term that will make us more attractive to sponsors, sustainable and enable us to keep growing the fan base.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

OK, let''s look at it a different way. What is more lucrative, a thousand more seats or a league position?

 

 

[/quote]

 

Nutty in answer to your question in the short term clearly league position is more important to us which is why i think the Club''s current approach of adding a bit of extra capacity where we can but putting the vast majority of our resources into the team is correct. Certainly until we are more established at this level and have built a squad of premiership players. At the moment £3-4m = another player for us and we need all the money we can to build our squad.

If we stay up here, however, there will hopefully come a point where wholesale changes to the squad every summer are not necessary and where the finanical situation is such that we can afford to spend £4-5m on a ground extension without it prejudicing or hindering squad development and thats when we shoudl expand the ground as long term that will make us more attractive to sponsors, sustainable and enable us to keep growing the fan base.

[/quote]

 

As I''ve said elsewhere I have no problem with money being spent on new stands etc if it doesn''t impact on the player budget. But having said that the idea that we will be in a position to stand still in a few years worries me greatly. This is exactly what the old board did in the Champs. We found out to our cost that if you stand still other clubs come past you resulting in dropping down the league table. The only way it would work would be if all clubs took a few years out of improving the team to spend the money elsewhere. IMO we have to move forward every year to keep pace.