SwindonCanary 455 Posted September 2, 2014 Watching the Football League Show on Saturday it was frightening how they pointed out our loss, dropping out of Premiership, basically they said it''s a straight loss of 50 million for dropping from 100 million to 50 million and on top of that TV money has dropped from 66 million to 26 million Totaling - it''s from 166 million to 76 million, a reduction of 90 million !With all this in mind, how are we able to keep players and add to the squad as we have ?Are we going into debt as a gamble to go straight up ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horse Renoir 1 Posted September 2, 2014 10 Million left over from January, every players wages getting reduced, we sold Snodgrass and Fer for a hell of a lot more than they''re worth and saved their wages. 1 million each for RVw, Surman and Pilks plus wages saved. The new guys coming in will be on Championship wages etcPurple reckons our income will be reduced by 45 million ish not 90 million, plus we can always be relied on to get full crowds who pay good money. No way are we going back into debt (Or at least any significant debt) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWC 240 Posted September 2, 2014 I don''t know for sure, but I think there will be parachute payments on top of that. Also adding to the fact that we have received more than we have spent in transfers, and reduced the wage bill, so I''m guessing we''re treading water financially at the mo. without going significantly into the red. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,160 Posted September 2, 2014 I thought they said our turnover has dropped from 100m to 50m which would include the loss of TV money going from 66m to 26m so you''re counting the drop twice ? The 100m includes TV revenue. And most of that 100m went on wages. We''ve let go some of our highest earners and - hopefully - most of our squad are on contracts where relegation sees their wages cut by a similar proportion. there''s not been any mention of us having to borrow to fund the purchases, and remember we''ve got in £20m from selling players while our outlay is only a fraction of that. So I''m hoping we''re not having to start taking on debt. Probably important to get promoted this year tho'', to keep the squad together as well as financially. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
STAN 29 Posted September 2, 2014 I think the fact we''ve spent 600/700k on a player and loaned him straight out says it all really! If their was any risk of impending financial difficulty it wouldn''t have happened! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YellowFellow 0 Posted September 2, 2014 Also, i have not checked it myself but i read that after all the ins and outs we are actully £1mil better off still Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chicken 0 Posted September 2, 2014 Well Snoddy was £7million+, Fer £10million, Pilks and Surman £1million each and RVW loan the same so £3million. Plus we are also down the other players that were released at the end of last season.Lafferty rumoured to be around £4million, Grabban £3million and the man from Belgium £4million. Call it £12million. Cuellar was free. Jos a loan so who knows, Miquel - not seen anything rumoured. £1million for McGrandle and £600k for the Swindon lad. So say £14million plus Miquel and Jos - the others have brought in £20million. So I think we can say we have made more than £1million.That said, we had one of the cheapest wage amounts in the premier league. We also churn out a profit as a club. Plus the parachute payments.Grabban is a very clever investment in many ways. He has come from the lower leagues so most probably wasn''t on a great deal of money. So not only was his value at purchase good, I suspect his wages are not astronomical either. Probably less than other strikers who moved for more. McGrandle will be the same coming from a smaller Scottish team (compared to us) and being relatively young. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pabs 0 Posted September 2, 2014 If Lafferty was 4million... I will eat mY hat!Probably more like 1.5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chicken 0 Posted September 2, 2014 These are rumoured amounts. It might be 4million Euro''s - but that''s still more than £1.5million.Either way, the club has still made a lot more than one million overall over the summer.Fox and Nash were earlier departures, maybe not on a lot of money in wages but it''s still some. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwindonCanary 455 Posted September 2, 2014 Things would be a lot clearer if with every deal Norwich make the amount is not ''undisclosed'' ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted September 3, 2014 [quote user="swindoncanary"]Watching the Football League Show on Saturday it was frightening how they pointed out our loss, dropping out of Premiership, basically they said it''s a straight loss of 50 million for dropping from 100 million to 50 million and on top of that TV money has dropped from 66 million to 26 million Totaling - it''s from 166 million to 76 million, a reduction of 90 million !With all this in mind, how are we able to keep players and add to the squad as we have ?Are we going into debt as a gamble to go straight up ?[/quote]eh !I should imagine that all things being equal we would have earned £100m last seasonremove the £60m tv money and it gives £40m this seasonadd the £23m parachute payment, the £4m or so TV money and guess at how much has the reduced wages saved and you will see how much worse off we are - player sales will have generated moreAs to the suggestion that publishing the transfer fees would help that is very misleading. Much like asking how much it costs you to get into a nightclub so to work out how much your night out costTake the young lad we have just signed from your local club.We will have paid an initial fee with further payments due to appearances, promotion internationals etc. These figures will have to be costed in to the clubs budget, but would they be included in the figure you are asking for. If so, what happens if he fails and we never make those payments ? What about any player or agent fees, are they to be included in the figure you ask for ?Who is paying his wages and at what percentage ? Again should those amounts be included, or not ?As to the club going into debt that is highly unlikely, We have just struggled to clear the debt, and who would lend us money on that basis. There is also the small matter of FFP.I think we are just using the money that we have fairly wisely. Remember the club did state that we would be budgeting for us to be a ''yo yo'' club so none of this is unexpected and would have been fairly thoroughly costed. So sit back and enkpy another good season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
clarkey1972 0 Posted September 3, 2014 Im sure the club wouldnt go back into the red, espeically if Delia is looking to sell. I think it was one of McNallys aims to get the club in the black. If it was the case I''m sure they would have taken the Redmond offer and tried to get some coin from selling Hooper as well. Am sure we wouldnt have spent as much as we have either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T 190 Posted September 3, 2014 As someone said suspect we have spent less then we have received and unlikely that we will go in debt as unlikely that loans available.The club has always been run under the current shareholders along the legal and commonsense requirements of prudence with ambition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
militantcanary 0 Posted September 3, 2014 The short answer is that we have gambled albeit in a mostly controlled manner. I would guess that we have made a profit of about of just over 3M in our dealings minus signing on fees. We will need to make a similar profit in January to break even this year I would guess, which we will be able to do if we want ie Redmond, Olsson and Hooper will hopefully be worth the same or more in January and we have replacements already in place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted September 3, 2014 sorry, but that doesn''t make sense Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chicken 0 Posted September 4, 2014 City is right, it doesn''t make sense, especially if you throw in that even based upon rumoured transfer fees we have made more than £3million this summer. Not to mention your suggestion is that we cannot afford the wage bill we currently have . . . . RVW, Snodgrass, Fer - all players signed when we were in the Premier League and likely to have been higher wage earners at the club. Nash, Pilkington, Surman and Fox gone as well. All would have been on decent wages although maybe not the top earners. Becchio also gone out on loan until January.Everyone else has had a wage cut which was designed to make us affordable wage wise with the parachute payments.At this point, I really wouldn''t worry. If we needed to sell more, we would have done so already. The club is in good hands, hands which have seen the rise from a perilous position, paid of debts that hung like a millstone for two decades.Results on the pitch are going to be more key to retaining players now than whether we need to sell to balance books. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BVI 0 Posted September 11, 2014 I thought Mr. McNally or the club has said the revenue for this season was expected to be £50m. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted September 11, 2014 I think we earned around £24m last time we were in the Championshipadd the £23m parachute payment and that should give you a rough figurebefore any transfer dealings Share this post Link to post Share on other sites