Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Our playing budget - now we know

A very useful titbit from the Guardian interview with Gareth Ainsworth this morning: confirmation of our playing budget.

Last season it was £1.6m, this year it was going to be £1.2m but Rob Couhig restored the cut 35% and added a little extra. So we can reasonably safely assume it's around £1.75m. (Note that Accrington announced in July that their playing budget is £1.7m, which I suspect was Gareth's benchmark in negotiations.)

Also interesting is that Gareth accepts that in the past he has been tactically naive but now thinks of himself as a more thoughtful manager: “In management terms I’ve moved away from the Mustang, a basic straight-line, look-at-me car. I’m more of a thinker now than I’ve ever been and I’m proud I’ve developed into this. I was nowhere near this when I first took over."



  • So we've increased the size of the squad, and the quality has massively gone up, for a 100-150k more in budget!?

    Amazing work, unless that "little extra" is actually a lot extra, or the overall figures aren't accurate.

  • @aloysius Thank you for providing the link.

    Just to note that I think our budget is higher than your initial calculation. The article states that the budget was "cut by 35% to around £1.2m at the end of last season." On the basis that £1.2m was the 65% that wasn't cut, the full budget for last year was £1.85m.

  • Luckily, he had about 100 or so experts pointing out his mistakes for him... :smiley:

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • That comment relating to tactical mouse I think.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • Nouse even.

  • Nous even better.

  • @Uncle_T good point - think I need to retake my GCSE maths exam. So the budget likely to have been increased to around £2m, which would address @Malone's point about the alchemy needed to sign all these new players (though there will have been significant savings also from CMS, Tyson, el Abd etc coming off the wage bill)

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • @micra said:
    That comment relating to tactical mouse I think.

    Listening too much to the tactical mouse may have been his problem early doors...

  • The amended logic makes much more sense.

    And totally shows how we went from talking of "No permanent signings" to then suddenly making 12 signings, 8 permanent is it? (Smyth, Aarrons, Oboforh and is Phillips on loan?)

  • All the bracketed are on loan @Malone.

  • Poet and didn’t know it.

  • Interesting.

    Just to do the maths. assuming all other costs apart from player salaries are constant whether in league 1 , league 2 or National League for that matter.

    In League 1 we can fund break-even on a budget of £1.2m with no investment.

    If we were relegated to Lg2, we lose over £0.5m in TV money plus say £0.2m in gate money

    So it appears we can break even in Lg2 on a budget of around £0.5m

    If we were relegated to National league we lose £0.5m in TV money plus say £0.2m in gate money.

    So it appears in the national league we would need the players to pay subs of £200k per season to survive without outside investment.

    👍 👎 ( -9 )
  • Probably for the best if you leave the maths well alone, Dev.

  • Tactical Mouse is a great nickname for Richie.

    👍 👎 ( 3 )
  • you are probably right York. But I can't see where I have gone wrong. Could you point it out for me.

    👍 👎 ( -7 )
  • @DevC if we all say you're right will you stop making the same point over and over again?

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • Have to confess. Just switched to the Gasroom and a medium length post just filled the tiny screen on my iPhone but the username wasn’t visible. A quick glance told me it was @DevC and a micro-scroll down confirmed it.

    I have no wish to try to comprehend what must be extremely complex financial considerations, made to look deceptively simple by @Dev’s post.

    I fear this may run and run but I hope not and I will join @peterparrotface in saying I’m sure you’re right, Dev and I love what you

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • for WHC.

  • WHC?


  • Not a participant @Malone ?

  • Oh you weren't being cheeky at his style of post?

  • edited October 2019

    While posters on this board are still considering rejecting the Couhig offer and instead "living within our means", I think it is worth posting the realities of that action when new information illustrating the point comes along.

    In essence @micra I don't think it is all that complicated. you minimise your non-playing costs and maximise your income (including shareholder and other loans) and you can spend up to the difference between the two on the team. if you cut income by £500k, unless you can cut non-football costs (and if you can why haven't you done so already) , you have to cut the playing budget. As we thought we had to in the summer.

    Pressing the thumbs down button and burying heads in the sand doesn't change that reality (although I suspect that will not the deter the usual suspects)

    👍 👎 ( -18 )
  • Christ on a bike.

    👍 👎 ( 0 )
  • On his way to help out at Stoke?

    👍 👎 ( -3 )
  • Dev C is the Liz Truss of the Gasroom

    👍 👎 ( 0 )
  • Whilst I truly hate to agree with DevC his post does make a pretty good set of points.

    Whether you are pro or anti the Couhig's offer the outcome of a No going forward is going to be one whereby the footballing budget is reduced to a level suggested by the article in the Guardian. I would go further and suggest that it is most likely to be lower than that value to to the loan repayments required.

    I really wish the trust ownership model worked but for one way or another (it's not just down to how the trust board have been running the club) I think that that model will not work (and certainly not in its present form) if we are looking to remain a League One or (most likely) a League Two club.

    DevC (whilst I don't agree with the figures exactly) does make a good point that you can quickly get into a downward spiral. I do fear that if we were to enter that spiral the only way out is either Bury's way or having to sell to someone at greatly reduced security that we have on offer now.

    👍 👎 ( 0 )
  • I have read one person say they are going to vote No.

    Who are the usual suspects @DevC ? Name names, we're all friends on here

  • @peterparrotface said:
    I have read one person say they are going to vote No.

    Who are the usual suspects @DevC ? Name names, we're all friends on here

    As for the thumbs down I must admit I do it when it's mentioned just for my own shallow amusement...

    👍 👎 ( -12 )
  • richie said he's voting yes and he doesn't even bother with the maths. If that's not enough of an endorsement I don't know what is.

  • Classic derailing.

    Great to have another thread on the upcoming vote though. Just what we need.

    I don't how anyone can categorically state which way they will vote at the moment.

    👍 👎 ( -1 )
Sign In or Register to comment.