Club for sale etc.

Well that’s because one or two clubs are rich people’s playthings. I wish we were by the way but we are forced to live in the real world. But let’s not kid ourselves the budgets have been big enough to compete for the last two or three years

 

With respect there again you mentioned income but not nothing on everyday expenses as well salary inflation etc

 

What’s the excuse to be below a team like Morecambe then?

 

What do you think is the most significant expense at a football club? The playing squad.

And that has remained at £2.7m/£2.8m despite the increased revenue as Dennis has already posted.

The facts are in black and white. We're not only spending a reduced amount versus revenue, when you take inflation into account it's a real terms decrease. We're going nowhere.

 

And Cambridge, Stevenage, too.

Finance is no excuse. Our shortcomings are due to bad appointments (with the benefit of hindsight) and entirely our own fault.

 

First team managers failing to live up to their CVS and reputations including Morecambe’s

 

Stevenage had a bigger playing budget last season than we did. Evans understated it deliberately .
I read locally they were in the top four.

Salford, Stockport, Stevenage , Orient. Northampton (?) , Mansfield , BcAFc ( No specific order)

 

Well the last year and half inflation was running at 10% there or thereabouts.

 

In fairness, this is a good point. Yes income may have grown but do we have any ideas around outgoings, loans to pay (rates going up?) etc @Dennis

After all, we as a community can see that costs are going up at household level, so surely this must apply to the club?

Thanks

 

I agree, but it seems the only way we can be sustainable is to keep reducing the playing budgets. If costs are running higher elsewhere at the football club then cutbacks are required elsewhere. Noway should the football side suffer. We needed 6 or so players in the summer which we failed to replace with quality. Now we know why.

 

8 in 6 years or so, I just wish there was some common denominator that links them together.

 

You really wouldn’t have thought the answer is so hard to find … but, as Jesus said “This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” (Matty 13:13)

 

Wholly depressing. And it doesn't take a degree from LSE to understand what is going on.

I'd love there to be a fans forum where these figures and relative decline can be put to the club to answer.

 

It certainly does, a point many are missing Dave. Ground upkeep , non football staff wages , training facilities , merchandise , repairs , matchday security , hospitality etc etc costs will all have increased around by 10%.

 

as long as the fans turn up in their droves Rupp is under no pressure to sell. If everyone boycotted buying STs (won’t happen in reality) only then would he show some urgency and lower his asking price.

 

Costs have gone up, yes, but surely that’s why you express the wage expenditure as a percentage of your turnover, so it is relative to the growth or decline?

The fact ours is only 35% (or whatever it worked out as) seems very low (and indicative of an unambitious club happy to plod along).

 

So I am going to make an assumption here, are you suggesting we shouldn’t question where the money is going because it is obvious that non football financial activity has now taken precedence over actual football? My questions are this, If our football playing budget has actually decreased over the last 4 years, why hasn’t our non football activity decreased in real terms? It is the equivalent of spending money on making the house look nice whilst not paying the mortgage or electricity bill.

 

Are we chuff. I'd be amazed if we are even in the top ten.

 

Rich peoples play things or not, they are still restricted to 55% of turnover. Turnover is basically income, it doesn't include loans or gifts, so they have to pull in that income before they spend it. In the case of Wrexham they have done it with the TV show and massive merchandise sales, yet here we are in November, only three months into the season and having a black friday sale on this year's kits.

Sparks and his team may have done wonders getting sponsorship but those sponsors won't re-invest if they see a poor product on the field, a low league position and most of all unrest amongst the fans. They need a happy fan base for them to be more inclined to buy the products of the sponsors.

There is no doubt our income has increased, but if as said we only spend 35% of it on the playing budget, then that represents at best stagnation. Either the non playing budget is too high in relation to the playing budget, which restricts what we can spend or the books are being made to look profitable so that a higher price can be achieved in a sale.

It's easy to look up the turnover of various clubs. In 2022, when finishing 3rd in League One, MKD had a turnover of £6.5m, in the same year Leyton Orient had a turnover of £5m. Forest Green had a turnover of £6.2m. Northampton had £5.2m. Ours was £7.1m.

Even if our playing budget was the same as both of these clubs, then we are spending less of it as a percentage of turnover on playing staff. Now, there is nothing to say that we should spend the full 55%, but if our income is more than these, then something is wrong in the amount we spend in other areas. And before you scream "the cost of VP" our stadium costs in 2022 were £410,000 so even factoring in that we still have more income than all the clubs noted above.

If, as we are lead to believe, the commercial team has pulled in record amounts of income, and turnover for 22/23 is £8.3m, then the cost of VP is irrelevant.

Basically what I am saying is that the maximum budget for Leyton Orient and Northampton, on players for 22/23 seasons they were both promoted in, using the 55% cap, is £3,575,000 and £2,860,000 respectively.

Someone needs to come in and do a root and branch analysis of what this club actually spends it's money on, but it won't happen because we have only two directors (Rupp & Biggin) and a CEO who is the equivalent of a glove puppet, so there is no-one to hold anyone to account.

The above clubs mentioned all seem to have at least six directors. We aren't a properly run Ltd Company, we are a dictatorship or at very best a fiefdom.