Remarkable argument @glasshalffull . Demanding others give evidence to back up the opposite view to you when you have no evidence at all for your opinion.
I can fully believe our total footballing budget is in the lower half but can't see how our first team budget is anything other than top half based on the players at the club.
As ever when this is raised I don’t think the distinction between the two ‘budgets’ is helpful. We have chosen to focus limited resources on the first team, meaning we are affected more seriously by injuries and suspensions; where others have spread their resources across a wider number of players.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
Remarkable argument glasshalffull . Demanding others give evidence to back up the opposite view to you when you have no evidence at all for your opinion.
I can fully believe our total footballing budget is in the lower half but can't see how our first team budget is anything other than top half based on the players at the club.
How do you know that I have no evidence? Off the top of my head I listed no fewer than 9 clubs whose playing budget I believe to be higher than Wycombe’s and I haven’t seen anyone question that list.
@Chris Not seen many squad lists on the back of our programmes that are massively longer than ours. Not sure that backs up your logic even if this is the story we've been fed.
@glasshalffull I'll question that list. Some such as Luton or Notts Co are probably over paying for aging talent but I'd venture that our top 16 earners are on a par than any of the other clubs you mention.
@glasshalffull I used to serve on the Trust Board and had no such knowledge on detail of rival League Two club player budgets. Unless you are a high level club employee or representative I would question whether you have this kind of info so perhaps you could either reveal your status or if not stop making assumptions. It was you that made the assertion.
Wycombe's attendances are probably just about top half League Two. I appreciate that there are variances where clubs such as Mansfield have comparable gates but have money being pumped in by an owner but without access to the numbers I don't see how you can make the argument you are with such certainty. Of course we also have fans making donations / investments through a designated player budget scheme which will help
Also, RITM makes a fair point that first team budget and squad budget are not necessarily the same, we operate with a smaller than average squad size.
The evidence is surely that the club told us in words of one syllable that we had a (as i remember) bottom three budget - admittedly possibly two seasons ago. Since then the Ibe money cleared the need for an annual repayment to Hayes which should have improved cash flow a little but that was "only" £150k a year or so, I believe.
So either the club was lying (for which there seems to be no evidence apart from the fact that ainsworth has outperformed that level consistently) or we have a budget in the bottom few.
As a sense check you can look at revenue flows and you get a similar picture.
Attendance wise - we are mid table
Whenever prices are compared we come out just about cheapest.
Midtable attendance times cheapest prices = at best low middle gate money.
And then money put in by our owner - nil in our case, more than nil in many (most?) other clubs.
And then the reality that up until a couple of seasons ago at least, we had to trade at a profit in order to meet loan repayments - other clubs don't. Not sure if this has changed or are we still funding loan repayments from day to day revenue?
We have a smaller squad than most and several of those squad are very experienced players playing out the last season or two having made their money elsewhere and now wanting to be treated as adults by a grown up manager. We often gamble by giving these players two year contracts - probably trading annual salary for security.
And then we have the bizarre idea that other clubs spunk away money for no return on "reserve teams and youth squads" which we somehow cheat by not replicating. Presumably those that do, do so because they believe those assets benefit the club financially and on the pitch.
Evidence seems to me to be overwhelming that we have a below average budget at best and probably still a bottom six one. Its an important question though as it should define the benchmark against which the managers performance is judged. I believe the finance forum was cancelled due to weather before xmas and will be rearranged shortly. Perhaps somebody attending could ask the question?
Every time we have this debate we have exactly the same arguments. The fact is neither side have any "evidence" as to the size of our playing budget. Dev can offer stats about attendances, others can counter with names of players who you'd expect to be earning above average salaries - it's all gravy, really, without cold hard facts.
The only person on this thread with any inside knowledge of how big our playing budget is will be @DJWYC14 and I suspect, for good reasons, he won't be telling us.
You are right Aloysius, only those with access to the figures can know for sure. those who don't can only ask. When someone asked a couple of years ago, the answer was we were in (as I recall) in the bottom three. May be time at the next forum to ask for an update?
Trouble is that it seems there are some determined not to believe the answer they are given.
I think the circumstantial evidence that suggests we have a wage bill in the top 16 of League 2 outweighs the evidence that our wage bill in the bottom 8.
As for not believing 'whatever answer (we) are given,' I believe that some managers, GA apparently among them, think that mentioning a low budget is a good way to manage expectations. It doesn't bother me.
To be fair I don't recalling the "small club/low budget" mantra quite so much this last season from GA, et al.
My guess would be that in the play off season (2014/15) we did indeed have a "bottom six" budget, evidenced by the very small squad (in terms of numbers) we had that season with the emphasis very much on quality rather than quantity.
I would think that since then, the increased money that has come from the play-offs, FA Cup runs, and reduction in debt payments (presumably) from the Ibe windfall and initiatives like the 500 club has meant that the playing budget has increased quite significantly. Our ability to maintain a fairly sizeable squad (certainly compared with 3 seasons ago) this season hints at this.
I very much doubt that we are top 4 in terms of budget so as of today I think we can safely say that we are over-performing.
@DevC I think the reason people questioned that 'bottom three' statement is because there's no way the club would know. It's not like the various chairmen of League Two clubs meet at some sort of masonic lodge, roll their trouser legs up and exchange those figures on the sly. Playing budgets are commercially confidential for very good reason - mostly so opposition teams don't know who they can undercut and gazzump when it comes to transferring players. It sounded like a soundbite from Gareth Ainsworth to me, designed to play into the 'little club' philosophy that others have noted has now dropped away a little, and not something to take too seriously.
I think GA may be concerned (as I am) that there has been a worrying indication of complacency on the part of previous and potential new contributors to the 500-18 Club. I believe this year’s total is only slightly more than a third of last year’s £75000 target which contributed towards the signing or retention of one or two key players and the fact that we now have, arguably, the strongest squad since GA took over may have led to this apparent complacency.
I just hope that there has been a sudden surge in the number of people (currently about 160 I believe) prepared to chip in £150 or £12.50 a month.
As I understand it, Aloysius, all clubs do receive an anonymised document from the football league with details of relative playing salary budgets for all clubs but without knowing which clubs the other 23 positions are. (i.e. they know for example that the top club has a budget of 240% of the lowest and know which one they are, but don't know who the top or bottom club is - unless they are one of them).
As I recall it, Mr Middle, it was stated that we have a player budget in the bottom three of the league. To be fair if I remember correctly, the word budget has two syllables if that was your point.
This does seem highly relevant to me and well worth asking for an update. Baz is gone, highly likely that Howard will be gone by end of 2018 IMHO, and I sense there are elements of the supporter base preparing to criticise strongly the remaining management as soon as opportunity presents. If as my suspicion is, Ainsworth still has a bottom six budget, then any outcome in the top half would be a very good outcome, if he has had a top half budget for the last few seasons then upper mid table could be described as an underachievement.
@fame_46 Do you need a reminder as to who the manager was when we came close to falling out the league pyramid?
Gareth Ainsworth is having a very good season - adroit player purchasing, playing the squad in their natural positions, better use of substitutions, more passing on the ground, more attacking play, more goals and less negative spin to the fans. That's why there hasn't been any criticism of him this season and why we all think he's in a good position to take us up or at least get us into the play-offs. It also, to my mind, suggests the constructive criticism he received previously - mostly calling for him to do more of the above - seems justified. He's learned from his mistakes and become a better manager and we're all profiting from it. But would he if we had just complacently accepted all of the dross served up previously?
@DevC For me the word 'top' fits your one syllable story better than the word 'bottom'.
I think you've also managed to point out the reason for the low budget to be believed. Most of it has come from Ainsworth in recent seasons (although to be fair not this one that much) and it really does suit him for it to be believed doesn't it? Under achieving with a better than admitted budget really does paint a different picture.
I still think the vast majority of fans would like Ainsworth to stay for a long time yet. Not sure Facebook or the Gasroom can be used as a barometer for how well liked the manager is. Are you getting this 'sense' from something else?
But the statement that we had a bottom six budget came from the Trust not from the manager, mr middle.
If you are right and we have a top six budget, then it could well be argued that we have underachieved in recent seasons and may well do so again this year. But it is hard to see how that could possibly be the case in view of attendances, prices and lack of "sugar - daddy " investment.
If on the other hand we have a bottom six budget, then a repeat of the last couple of seasons outcomes of challenging for but missing out on the playoffs would remain an impressive achievement surely?
Since it is near impossible to establish exactly where we are in the financial league table, let’s be more generic.
I’m sure that everyone will agree that there is a direct correlation in every division between what you spend on players and where you stand in the table.
I trust that everyone will also agree that Luton, Notts County, Coventry, Lincoln and Mansfield all have greater resources than Wycombe so on that basis alone we are doing very well to be sitting amongst them in the top 6.
For what it's worth I think our budget is somewhere nicely in the middle of the league but then I would think that wouldn't I? The Trust have to back up the manager don't they? The only reason I mentioned top was because it was the only one syllable word I could think of to fit your statement of how we were told about the budget. There is no way we are spending as much as Luton or Notts Co. but I'd argue they overspend for what they get. Ainsworth does pretty well with his recruitment on the whole.
I think our players over perform but our playing style doesn't give our experienced players any chance of playing at their best for that long. Lots are either knackered or injured for large chunks of the season. For that reason I'm fully expecting our performances to drift away as they've done so often in recent seasons. I think our management team could mitigate this risk but I don't think they will. They haven't before.
Not sure that could be described as impressive but it is an achievement of sorts I suppose. It beats having to rely on miracles on a May day in Torquay but if that is your base then you have a large scope for being pleased.
@fame_46 said:
aloysius do you remember the dire straits the club was in?
Also was his first year as a full time manager. I’m sure GA would love to go out and sign technically better players to coach and implement free flowing football.
Unfortunately we don’t have the finances firstly, secondly as a manager you have to implement a strategy to be effective with what you have at your disposal.
This league isn’t pretty, for every Eze there’s someone waiting to kick lumps out of you. Wycombe are currently sitting 4th in the league, which is a brilliant achievement at half way point of the season.
I get frustrated at times after the likes of Mansfield and Luton but we have a togetherness in the playing squad and a management team who genuinely care about the club.
Look around league 1 and 2, there isn’t a manager out there better equipped than GA in my opinion.....
Well said Fame46, I agree with every word you’ve written.
I don't disagree @glasshalffull and also agree with the sentiment expressed in both @aloysius and @fame_46 's posts. I am still intrigued however by your inference that you have further knowledge on where our budget sits comparatively. Can you state your position or were you in fact guessing like the other posters?
Comments
You're the one making the starting assertion, @glasshalffull. You back it up.
Remarkable argument @glasshalffull . Demanding others give evidence to back up the opposite view to you when you have no evidence at all for your opinion.
I can fully believe our total footballing budget is in the lower half but can't see how our first team budget is anything other than top half based on the players at the club.
As ever when this is raised I don’t think the distinction between the two ‘budgets’ is helpful. We have chosen to focus limited resources on the first team, meaning we are affected more seriously by injuries and suspensions; where others have spread their resources across a wider number of players.
How do you know that I have no evidence? Off the top of my head I listed no fewer than 9 clubs whose playing budget I believe to be higher than Wycombe’s and I haven’t seen anyone question that list.
@Chris Not seen many squad lists on the back of our programmes that are massively longer than ours. Not sure that backs up your logic even if this is the story we've been fed.
@glasshalffull I'll question that list. Some such as Luton or Notts Co are probably over paying for aging talent but I'd venture that our top 16 earners are on a par than any of the other clubs you mention.
@glasshalffull I used to serve on the Trust Board and had no such knowledge on detail of rival League Two club player budgets. Unless you are a high level club employee or representative I would question whether you have this kind of info so perhaps you could either reveal your status or if not stop making assumptions. It was you that made the assertion.
Wycombe's attendances are probably just about top half League Two. I appreciate that there are variances where clubs such as Mansfield have comparable gates but have money being pumped in by an owner but without access to the numbers I don't see how you can make the argument you are with such certainty. Of course we also have fans making donations / investments through a designated player budget scheme which will help
Also, RITM makes a fair point that first team budget and squad budget are not necessarily the same, we operate with a smaller than average squad size.
The evidence is surely that the club told us in words of one syllable that we had a (as i remember) bottom three budget - admittedly possibly two seasons ago. Since then the Ibe money cleared the need for an annual repayment to Hayes which should have improved cash flow a little but that was "only" £150k a year or so, I believe.
So either the club was lying (for which there seems to be no evidence apart from the fact that ainsworth has outperformed that level consistently) or we have a budget in the bottom few.
As a sense check you can look at revenue flows and you get a similar picture.
Attendance wise - we are mid table
Whenever prices are compared we come out just about cheapest.
Midtable attendance times cheapest prices = at best low middle gate money.
And then money put in by our owner - nil in our case, more than nil in many (most?) other clubs.
And then the reality that up until a couple of seasons ago at least, we had to trade at a profit in order to meet loan repayments - other clubs don't. Not sure if this has changed or are we still funding loan repayments from day to day revenue?
We have a smaller squad than most and several of those squad are very experienced players playing out the last season or two having made their money elsewhere and now wanting to be treated as adults by a grown up manager. We often gamble by giving these players two year contracts - probably trading annual salary for security.
And then we have the bizarre idea that other clubs spunk away money for no return on "reserve teams and youth squads" which we somehow cheat by not replicating. Presumably those that do, do so because they believe those assets benefit the club financially and on the pitch.
Evidence seems to me to be overwhelming that we have a below average budget at best and probably still a bottom six one. Its an important question though as it should define the benchmark against which the managers performance is judged. I believe the finance forum was cancelled due to weather before xmas and will be rearranged shortly. Perhaps somebody attending could ask the question?
@Right_in_the_Middle What are other clubs paying for from their non-first team footballing budget that we are not?
A youth system...
Every time we have this debate we have exactly the same arguments. The fact is neither side have any "evidence" as to the size of our playing budget. Dev can offer stats about attendances, others can counter with names of players who you'd expect to be earning above average salaries - it's all gravy, really, without cold hard facts.
The only person on this thread with any inside knowledge of how big our playing budget is will be @DJWYC14 and I suspect, for good reasons, he won't be telling us.
You are right Aloysius, only those with access to the figures can know for sure. those who don't can only ask. When someone asked a couple of years ago, the answer was we were in (as I recall) in the bottom three. May be time at the next forum to ask for an update?
Trouble is that it seems there are some determined not to believe the answer they are given.
I think the circumstantial evidence that suggests we have a wage bill in the top 16 of League 2 outweighs the evidence that our wage bill in the bottom 8.
As for not believing 'whatever answer (we) are given,' I believe that some managers, GA apparently among them, think that mentioning a low budget is a good way to manage expectations. It doesn't bother me.
I suspect that @glasshalffull quite possibly does have a greater access to information that we regular supporters don't?
'the club told us in words of one syllable that we had a (as i remember) bottom three budget'
What were the one syllable words (as you remember) @DevC ?
To be fair I don't recalling the "small club/low budget" mantra quite so much this last season from GA, et al.
My guess would be that in the play off season (2014/15) we did indeed have a "bottom six" budget, evidenced by the very small squad (in terms of numbers) we had that season with the emphasis very much on quality rather than quantity.
I would think that since then, the increased money that has come from the play-offs, FA Cup runs, and reduction in debt payments (presumably) from the Ibe windfall and initiatives like the 500 club has meant that the playing budget has increased quite significantly. Our ability to maintain a fairly sizeable squad (certainly compared with 3 seasons ago) this season hints at this.
I very much doubt that we are top 4 in terms of budget so as of today I think we can safely say that we are over-performing.
@DevC I think the reason people questioned that 'bottom three' statement is because there's no way the club would know. It's not like the various chairmen of League Two clubs meet at some sort of masonic lodge, roll their trouser legs up and exchange those figures on the sly. Playing budgets are commercially confidential for very good reason - mostly so opposition teams don't know who they can undercut and gazzump when it comes to transferring players. It sounded like a soundbite from Gareth Ainsworth to me, designed to play into the 'little club' philosophy that others have noted has now dropped away a little, and not something to take too seriously.
@EwanHoosaami why so?
I think GA may be concerned (as I am) that there has been a worrying indication of complacency on the part of previous and potential new contributors to the 500-18 Club. I believe this year’s total is only slightly more than a third of last year’s £75000 target which contributed towards the signing or retention of one or two key players and the fact that we now have, arguably, the strongest squad since GA took over may have led to this apparent complacency.
I just hope that there has been a sudden surge in the number of people (currently about 160 I believe) prepared to chip in £150 or £12.50 a month.
As I understand it, Aloysius, all clubs do receive an anonymised document from the football league with details of relative playing salary budgets for all clubs but without knowing which clubs the other 23 positions are. (i.e. they know for example that the top club has a budget of 240% of the lowest and know which one they are, but don't know who the top or bottom club is - unless they are one of them).
As I recall it, Mr Middle, it was stated that we have a player budget in the bottom three of the league. To be fair if I remember correctly, the word budget has two syllables if that was your point.
This does seem highly relevant to me and well worth asking for an update. Baz is gone, highly likely that Howard will be gone by end of 2018 IMHO, and I sense there are elements of the supporter base preparing to criticise strongly the remaining management as soon as opportunity presents. If as my suspicion is, Ainsworth still has a bottom six budget, then any outcome in the top half would be a very good outcome, if he has had a top half budget for the last few seasons then upper mid table could be described as an underachievement.
Where's Richie when you need him to settle an argument about club income and finances?
@fame_46 Do you need a reminder as to who the manager was when we came close to falling out the league pyramid?
Gareth Ainsworth is having a very good season - adroit player purchasing, playing the squad in their natural positions, better use of substitutions, more passing on the ground, more attacking play, more goals and less negative spin to the fans. That's why there hasn't been any criticism of him this season and why we all think he's in a good position to take us up or at least get us into the play-offs. It also, to my mind, suggests the constructive criticism he received previously - mostly calling for him to do more of the above - seems justified. He's learned from his mistakes and become a better manager and we're all profiting from it. But would he if we had just complacently accepted all of the dross served up previously?
@DevC For me the word 'top' fits your one syllable story better than the word 'bottom'.
I think you've also managed to point out the reason for the low budget to be believed. Most of it has come from Ainsworth in recent seasons (although to be fair not this one that much) and it really does suit him for it to be believed doesn't it? Under achieving with a better than admitted budget really does paint a different picture.
I still think the vast majority of fans would like Ainsworth to stay for a long time yet. Not sure Facebook or the Gasroom can be used as a barometer for how well liked the manager is. Are you getting this 'sense' from something else?
But the statement that we had a bottom six budget came from the Trust not from the manager, mr middle.
If you are right and we have a top six budget, then it could well be argued that we have underachieved in recent seasons and may well do so again this year. But it is hard to see how that could possibly be the case in view of attendances, prices and lack of "sugar - daddy " investment.
If on the other hand we have a bottom six budget, then a repeat of the last couple of seasons outcomes of challenging for but missing out on the playoffs would remain an impressive achievement surely?
Since it is near impossible to establish exactly where we are in the financial league table, let’s be more generic.
I’m sure that everyone will agree that there is a direct correlation in every division between what you spend on players and where you stand in the table.
I trust that everyone will also agree that Luton, Notts County, Coventry, Lincoln and Mansfield all have greater resources than Wycombe so on that basis alone we are doing very well to be sitting amongst them in the top 6.
For what it's worth I think our budget is somewhere nicely in the middle of the league but then I would think that wouldn't I? The Trust have to back up the manager don't they? The only reason I mentioned top was because it was the only one syllable word I could think of to fit your statement of how we were told about the budget. There is no way we are spending as much as Luton or Notts Co. but I'd argue they overspend for what they get. Ainsworth does pretty well with his recruitment on the whole.
I think our players over perform but our playing style doesn't give our experienced players any chance of playing at their best for that long. Lots are either knackered or injured for large chunks of the season. For that reason I'm fully expecting our performances to drift away as they've done so often in recent seasons. I think our management team could mitigate this risk but I don't think they will. They haven't before.
Not sure that could be described as impressive but it is an achievement of sorts I suppose. It beats having to rely on miracles on a May day in Torquay but if that is your base then you have a large scope for being pleased.
Well said Fame46, I agree with every word you’ve written.
I don't disagree @glasshalffull and also agree with the sentiment expressed in both @aloysius and @fame_46 's posts. I am still intrigued however by your inference that you have further knowledge on where our budget sits comparatively. Can you state your position or were you in fact guessing like the other posters?
@aloysius 'That's why there hasn't been any criticism of him this season '
That made me smile...then I realised you meant in 2018.
So far...