Balanced budget at higher level

What does the first line say. Of course extra money will be needed and the owners have already said the same. But Income streams will be vastly increased. Barnsley have been up a couple of years we will be at least able to match them we have the size of ground in place and potential fan base. It will be a struggle but that would be the case with the majority of league one teams

 

It says we'll need extra money and then went into list all the extra sources of income. My point is simply that they won't be enough and if you agree with that them it's all good.

 

Maybe it should have been clearer then we need extra money on top of the increased income

 

Yes I have some vague memory as well. I have been there before, and yes it is exciting, but we have to be able to sustain our club or we will bounce straight back. I remember the first season there last time, we hung on by our finger nails, Sgt Pepper stepped forward against QPR

 

Goodness. This crops up so often yet people still don't get it. Perhaps it is because of the patchy nature of figures bandied about.

Very very roughly, from numerous sketchy sources I've read, I'd say a typical League 2 club needs about £200k per year pumping into it to cover losses of running a mid-table budget, a typical League 1 club needs about £500k, a typical Championship club probably needs about £3-5m. The figures vary WILDLY from top to bottom of each division, and from season to season, depending which clubs go up and down - so much so that there isn't really a typical Premier League loss. Just make a number up for that. If you want promotion out of each lower division, you can add to the earlier "mid-table" loss figures to fund better players. Suggestions (from Edin at 25 year ticket meeting) are City likely lost towards £700k this season. Our wage budget looks set to be lower next year (somewhere in lower half of table) but ticket income looks likely to be down by more and we will probably lose commercial revenue as well. If revenues fall more than the playing budget, expect a bigger loss next season of over £1m, despite attempts to make efficiencies off the pitch. That is without an injection from owners - who still have to fund the £1m loss if they want to keep trading. If they want a player budget for a promotion push, the owners will have to dig even deeper into their pockets and add another £1m -£2m to add to the the expected £1m+ loss. A bit of that MIGHT then come back in cup runs, play-off money, or player sales at season end - or it might not. If we were to get promoted, expect to run at a loss of at least £3m if we want to stay in the Championship and more like a £10m loss to try get promotion to the Premier League.

These figures won't be spot on but they change quickly anyway. They give you an idea. The actual revenues are almost irrelevant because all the other rich owners are pumping in these extra amounts on top of TV and ticket money. That's the way football is in the English Leagues. That's why some clubs bought by fans bring in new investors again. They'd sink without new money. I doubt clubs can even run competitively at breakeven in the National League/5th division!

Although many supporters are unhappy with City's owners, they are faced with continual losses - and would do even with cheaper players in League 2 - unless we have some stroke of luck. Mid-table costs money. Promotion costs a small fortune and then a bigger one if you don't want to come back down. Football clubs are rich mens' playthings. Like yachts, racehorses and grand masters' paintings, it's show off money. Money "invested" is rarely recovered and owners move on when disappointed fans turn on them after their "flash" cash is gone and the ego trip turns sour. The result is that English League football is great - IF you are owned by somebody with deep enough pockets to afford the great players that are sucked in from all over the world. If not, your team will sink rapidly until it finds a new owner with more money than sense.

 

You sound surprised some clubs’ turnover was less than average budget?