Sparks Speaks

Does this work?

https://archive.ph/0p2Py

 

I'd say the budgets thing is the better talking point of the article. So Sparks says that our budget this season is about £2.7-2.8 million and the EFL report says that a club has a £4 million playing budget without naming but everyone knows which club that will be.

For comparison, last season Rotherham & Blackpool had budgets of just under £6m for the Championship. It has been reported (but won't be confirmed until the books come out towards the end of the season) that Plymouth have a £6m budget in the champ this season. I think £4m would end up being a competitive budget in L1.

 

Definitely think the gap between L2 and L1 would be bridgeable for us. The problems would definitely come in the money pit of a Championship, mixing with players on 40k a week, funded by parachute payments from PL

 

Yes but we wouldn’t need to compete with the relegated PL clubs with parachute payments, we’d just need to be better than 3 other teams at the bottom.

 

There are that many teams with parachute payments these days that there’d probably be someone in that bottom three still getting one!

 

Matching Plymouth and Rotherham (and other bottom end teams) with £6m budgets in the Championship would be more than doable for City.

TV money at that level alone was £6m per club a few years back.

We just really, really, need to get out of this league first.

 

To be fair, parachute payments aren't the game changer people think they are. It basically balances books a bit better.

Because you need to spend so much to have a chance in the prem these days, and those players they bring in don't all leave in the summer but are on very good championship wages when they go down. The parachute means these clubs don't just spiral into debt within 18 months as they still have a very high output but suddenly lose a chunk of attendance, a lot of advertisements and partnership money as well as the TV money. At the minute, the bottom of the PL gets £100m a season for TV rights, top of the champ gets £3m per season.

Sunderland still had parachute payments in L1 and were massively in debt because of their outputs still on the books.

 

In other words success is rewarded, and parachute payments also means failure is rewarded. It’s not beyond the wit of any lawyer to write into contract clauses, “ you are here on Prem wages until you get relegated”, “ You get relegated your salary drops to CC levels” . In a lot of instances the payment of the parachute, just aids the perpetual yo yoing of clubs. My local side Norwich is probably funded by it.

It creates a massive imbalance when in reality it could be resolved overnight .

ImHO of course.

 

Turn over also covers outgoings on other costs, not just playing salaries, stadium upkeep etc so not really an exact guide, however it’s enough of a number to ask questions.

 

It looks like we spend far more on non playing costs than the Players which is not a recipe for success. Everything we do should be with the intent of providing the manager with the highest budget we can,

 

@Dennis rarely gets his figures wrong

 

It’s a massive game changer for that reason. They sign players on far bigger wages in the Prem and then the parachute payments allow them to keep them in the championship.
Of course bigger wages don’t guarantee better players but the general trend would say that was the case.

 

That's a very worrying post Dennis although it does back up my belief that far from propping us up Stefan Rupp is slowly, mostly by neglect, strangling the life of of the club.

#Ruppout

 

Aye, it can't possibly be that all of the money generated doesn't get recycled into club funds. I'm just not buying it.

#Ruppout

 

Turnover means nothing if your cost of sales is higher. Perhaps 35% is the level that keeps us profitable?