Hey there's an interview with our beloved manager in a quality national newspaper. Which aspect of it shall we discuss? I know, let's talk about what he says about the playing budget and the Couhig's takeover bid, because we've only talked about them 3 million times before.
@OakwoodExile said:
Hey there's an interview with our beloved manager in a quality national newspaper. Which aspect of it shall we discuss? I know, let's talk about what he says about the playing budget and the Couhig's takeover bid, because we've only talked about them 3 million times before.
What aspects would you like to talk about? And why aren't you doing so?
How about this for one thing. There are plenty of others. Not sure it is an original interview. It may have been drawn from the EFL official podcast interview, which is excellent and which I watched in full on Sunday. Something that comes though both,, but particularly the EFL interview, is that Gaz wants to fulfill his ambition of managing higher with us if at all possible.
Rob has said he wants to spend our maximum budget on players wages allowed within the SCMP. He quotes "On the pitch, we have made sure that we will have the maximum amount of money currently available to Gareth under the Salary Cap Management Protocol." That would allow us to spend 60% of our annual turnover on players wages, this does not include other salaried employees.
Our turnover this season will be similar to last season at 4.5 million. Which means our current playing budget is 2.7 million, not the 2 million alluded above.This would incur debts of around 1.5 million per season as we have been told by The Trust our playing budget needed to be cut to 1-1.2 million to break even. To cover this we would need an extra 3260 visitors per game at £20 a pop, thus average gates of around 9000. Food for thought.
While he spends, spends, spends he gets us further in to massive debt that we can't possibly service.
wwfcblue. That's not food for thought, that is just very scary and my fear from the start of this process, get us so far into debt we cannot afford not to vote. I accept the Couhigs come across as great people but they are trying to win votes, its the same as MPs kissing babies. Could any tell me if a single league 1 team runs at a profit? I saw at the weekend Rochdale claim to run at breakeven on gates lower than ours. I look forward to seeing the proposal. The current board have to be applauded for maintaining the club over such a tough last season that there is even a bid on the table. Have we had any feedback (not hearsay) why the Yeovil deal fell through?
Are you our official supporter liaison officer @Fit2drop ? If so, your somewhat negative post troubles me, as does your contention that the current board are to be applauded, given that for all their tireless efforts and good intentions they were unable to prevent us from getting in to fairly substantial debt.
I assume you were not at any of the meetings with Rob Couhig and partners when, especially at the most recent one, Mr Couhig went into detail about the reasons for the failure to reach agreement with the club management board despite the playing staff and two (?3) supporters groups being in favour.
@wwfcblue said:
Rob has said he wants to spend our maximum budget on players wages allowed within the SCMP. He quotes "On the pitch, we have made sure that we will have the maximum amount of money currently available to Gareth under the Salary Cap Management Protocol." That would allow us to spend 60% of our annual turnover on players wages, this does not include other salaried employees.
Our turnover this season will be similar to last season at 4.5 million. Which means our current playing budget is 2.7 million, not the 2 million alluded above.This would incur debts of around 1.5 million per season as we have been told by The Trust our playing budget needed to be cut to 1-1.2 million to break even. To cover this we would need an extra 3260 visitors per game at £20 a pop, thus average gates of around 9000. Food for thought.
While he spends, spends, spends he gets us further in to massive debt that we can't possibly service.
If we take these numbers as spot on, that does mean it's championship or bust.
But looks a lot more in the surge in budget than other posts elsewhere on here suggest.
Given that the EFL definition of "turnover" includes new shareholder equity, then the cap is theoretically unlimited. If @wwfcblue's estimates were correct, that would mean Mr Couhig is purring in around £1.5m cash this season alone. That seems extremely unlikely to me.
Once again it is worth pointing out that shareholder debt is largely irrelevant. The only debt that can ever matter is debt that has to be paid back (eg bank debt). What is relevant is whether there are contracts in place (eg two year player deals) that cannot be got out of if and when the shareholder ceases to put in the cash needed to pay them.
I always check to see what horrendous, offensive things @DevC has written to get so many dislikes. Has he threatened someone? Injured a kitten? Burned down the Beechdean?
@Shev said:
I always check to see what horrendous, offensive things @DevC has written to get so many dislikes. Has he threatened someone? Injured a kitten? Burned down the Beechdean?
No, he has done some hypothetical math.
Can never understand why Richie attracts so many less than lovely comments either!
@Shev said:
I always check to see what horrendous, offensive things @DevC has written to get so many dislikes. Has he threatened someone? Injured a kitten? Burned down the Beechdean?
No, he has done some hypothetical math.
Can never understand why Richie attracts so many less than lovely comments either!
I never read @DevC 's long posts if they have numbers in them to be honest as I hate the maths while richie's gleeful negativity about players and manager gets my goat...or mouse...which I know is my fault.
This rather sums up the gasroom and "forums" in general I suppose.
In the real world we may have had a discussion where @eric_plant and @YorkExile could have in a friendly and possibly humorous manner pointed out the significant costs they think would be saved (apart from player wages) in Lg2 rather than Lg1. We both could have learned something and then moved on. It may very well be that I would have learned something I hadn't previously thought of and would agree that they are right and I was wrong
Sadly on forums, its far easier to just "play the man" and we learn nothing as a result.
As it stands I can see savings of a steward or two if crowds are lower, but apart from that at the moment I cant think of much.
Having derailed so many threads over time it's hard to accept playing the victim on this one when others play the same game @DevC .
Personally constantly using the words assuming or assumptions tells me you know as little about it all as anyone else.
Are the general running costs of a League One club higher than if they were in League Two? Can't be too hard to find out as eight teams change between the two leagues every season. I'm just not interested enough to look.
Comments regarding the additional funding Which might accrue to WWFC this year are not quite in line with the current discussion regarding the Legacy Vote. Firstly, the Funds to acquire control of WWFC will be funds passed to the Trust. The Trust owe funds to WWFC so a large chunk of the current advance will in reality being as a result of "The Trust repaying their outstanding loan" Other funds relating to the sale relate to the payment of outstanding charges on FALL. Again this cannot be included in the "income of WWFC" even the repayment of the earlier Loan from the Americans cannot be treated as additional WWFC revenue. What the Legacy members need is a very clear statement, prior to voting, on the sum being paid for the 75% voting shares. Advances from Rob Couhig greater than that will be loans advanced to WWFC.
Not playing the victim, Mr Middle, just pointing out that I would find it more interesting discussing the issues in a friendly humorous way more interesting than the incessant personal abuse that sadly is prevalent on this and I presume other forums. I will never indulge in personal abuse as a result. for me it is just dull. Others plainly have different views and priorities as is their right.
You may not regard it as important to try to understand cost differences between Lg1 and Lg2 club. that's fine, that's your right. I think it is in order to try to determine whether staying fan owned albeit at a division or two lower than present is a realistic alternative to accepting outside ownership or whether it is "pie in the sky"
But you've made this point and asked this question so many times I am wondering what else anyone can possibly say that will add anything @DevC
At some stage soon I have to vote on the future direction of my football club. I may well end up not being a part owner after it. Your constant single issue derailing is not helping me make my mind up. It's adding nothing g new.
you see you are making my point for me, Mr Middle. two posts from you now, both of which are personal conflict in nature, none of which actually says anything of substance. I think that's a shame (and to me boring). it seems to be what some people enjoy though.
meanwhile this article gave us one pertinent fact that I certainly didn't know before.
We now know that the break even budget in Lg1 without outside loans/investment is £1.2m
We know that TV and solidarity payments are around £1.2m in lg1 and £600k in lg2.
I cant think of any major cost savings apart from player wages between operating at lg1 and Lg2.
We can surmise that gate money in lg2 would be lower than lg1 and National league lower than lg2.
Unless I am missing something (and i would genuinely be grateful if someone could point out what), given this new piece of information, I cant see how the "club should live within its means" argument makes any sense at all.
We all know you only make these demands of other people so you can shoot down their reply with another straw man argument just to make you feel superior on a forum. Even you know it.
Just to follow up on @wwfcblue’s post and comment of our budget behind at the max of £2.7M.
Obviously I’ve no actual figures, but to reach this figure we would have to assume that we are paying in excess of £1.5M for the 10 or 11 new players we have acquired since the ‘investment’. (Remember we have lost El-Abd and CMS).
This seems somewhat unlikely to me and potentially destabilising to dressing room togetherness so I’d be surprised if GA would sanction it.
I think a budget of a little over £2M feels more likely - which is still low I believe in relation to a lot of L1 teams.
@bookertease said:
Just to follow up on @wwfcblue’s post and comment of our budget behind at the max of £2.7M.
Obviously I’ve no actual figures, but to reach this figure we would have to assume that we are paying in excess of £1.5M for the 10 or 11 new players we have acquired since the ‘investment’. (Remember we have lost El-Abd and CMS).
This seems somewhat unlikely to me and potentially destabilising to dressing room togetherness so I’d be surprised if GA would sanction it.
I think a budget of a little over £2M feels more likely - which is still low I believe in relation to a lot of L1 teams.
These are not my comments. Rob has clearly stated more than once that Gareth has the full SCMP available to him. Our turnover was 4.5 million last season and I see no reason why it is not heading along similar lines this season.
That means we are heading towards a playing budget of 2.7 million for the season and possibly more if increased turnover allows.
Madness, absolute madness!
Comments
There's not a thread in the world on any forum that Dev couldn't shoehorn his one and only opinion into.
Hey there's an interview with our beloved manager in a quality national newspaper. Which aspect of it shall we discuss? I know, let's talk about what he says about the playing budget and the Couhig's takeover bid, because we've only talked about them 3 million times before.
What aspects would you like to talk about? And why aren't you doing so?
How about this for one thing. There are plenty of others. Not sure it is an original interview. It may have been drawn from the EFL official podcast interview, which is excellent and which I watched in full on Sunday. Something that comes though both,, but particularly the EFL interview, is that Gaz wants to fulfill his ambition of managing higher with us if at all possible.
Rob has said he wants to spend our maximum budget on players wages allowed within the SCMP. He quotes "On the pitch, we have made sure that we will have the maximum amount of money currently available to Gareth under the Salary Cap Management Protocol." That would allow us to spend 60% of our annual turnover on players wages, this does not include other salaried employees.
Our turnover this season will be similar to last season at 4.5 million. Which means our current playing budget is 2.7 million, not the 2 million alluded above.This would incur debts of around 1.5 million per season as we have been told by The Trust our playing budget needed to be cut to 1-1.2 million to break even. To cover this we would need an extra 3260 visitors per game at £20 a pop, thus average gates of around 9000. Food for thought.
While he spends, spends, spends he gets us further in to massive debt that we can't possibly service.
wwfcblue. That's not food for thought, that is just very scary and my fear from the start of this process, get us so far into debt we cannot afford not to vote. I accept the Couhigs come across as great people but they are trying to win votes, its the same as MPs kissing babies. Could any tell me if a single league 1 team runs at a profit? I saw at the weekend Rochdale claim to run at breakeven on gates lower than ours. I look forward to seeing the proposal. The current board have to be applauded for maintaining the club over such a tough last season that there is even a bid on the table. Have we had any feedback (not hearsay) why the Yeovil deal fell through?
I’m chuffed that GA is getting a bit of deserved national recognition
Are you our official supporter liaison officer @Fit2drop ? If so, your somewhat negative post troubles me, as does your contention that the current board are to be applauded, given that for all their tireless efforts and good intentions they were unable to prevent us from getting in to fairly substantial debt.
I assume you were not at any of the meetings with Rob Couhig and partners when, especially at the most recent one, Mr Couhig went into detail about the reasons for the failure to reach agreement with the club management board despite the playing staff and two (?3) supporters groups being in favour.
Second paragraph relates to Yeovil of course.
I'm glad you cleared that up @micra, I was seriously confused and starting to think I'd missed something.
If we take these numbers as spot on, that does mean it's championship or bust.
But looks a lot more in the surge in budget than other posts elsewhere on here suggest.
We better get promoted!!
Given that the EFL definition of "turnover" includes new shareholder equity, then the cap is theoretically unlimited. If @wwfcblue's estimates were correct, that would mean Mr Couhig is purring in around £1.5m cash this season alone. That seems extremely unlikely to me.
Once again it is worth pointing out that shareholder debt is largely irrelevant. The only debt that can ever matter is debt that has to be paid back (eg bank debt). What is relevant is whether there are contracts in place (eg two year player deals) that cannot be got out of if and when the shareholder ceases to put in the cash needed to pay them.
I always check to see what horrendous, offensive things @DevC has written to get so many dislikes. Has he threatened someone? Injured a kitten? Burned down the Beechdean?
No, he has done some hypothetical math.
Can never understand why Richie attracts so many less than lovely comments either!
If your opening gambit is this:
"assuming all other costs apart from player salaries are constant whether in league 1 , league 2 or National League for that matter."
then there's no real need to read any further
I never read @DevC 's long posts if they have numbers in them to be honest as I hate the maths while richie's gleeful negativity about players and manager gets my goat...or mouse...which I know is my fault.
This.
This rather sums up the gasroom and "forums" in general I suppose.
In the real world we may have had a discussion where @eric_plant and @YorkExile could have in a friendly and possibly humorous manner pointed out the significant costs they think would be saved (apart from player wages) in Lg2 rather than Lg1. We both could have learned something and then moved on. It may very well be that I would have learned something I hadn't previously thought of and would agree that they are right and I was wrong
Sadly on forums, its far easier to just "play the man" and we learn nothing as a result.
As it stands I can see savings of a steward or two if crowds are lower, but apart from that at the moment I cant think of much.
Having derailed so many threads over time it's hard to accept playing the victim on this one when others play the same game @DevC .
Personally constantly using the words assuming or assumptions tells me you know as little about it all as anyone else.
Are the general running costs of a League One club higher than if they were in League Two? Can't be too hard to find out as eight teams change between the two leagues every season. I'm just not interested enough to look.
Comments regarding the additional funding Which might accrue to WWFC this year are not quite in line with the current discussion regarding the Legacy Vote. Firstly, the Funds to acquire control of WWFC will be funds passed to the Trust. The Trust owe funds to WWFC so a large chunk of the current advance will in reality being as a result of "The Trust repaying their outstanding loan" Other funds relating to the sale relate to the payment of outstanding charges on FALL. Again this cannot be included in the "income of WWFC" even the repayment of the earlier Loan from the Americans cannot be treated as additional WWFC revenue. What the Legacy members need is a very clear statement, prior to voting, on the sum being paid for the 75% voting shares. Advances from Rob Couhig greater than that will be loans advanced to WWFC.
Not playing the victim, Mr Middle, just pointing out that I would find it more interesting discussing the issues in a friendly humorous way more interesting than the incessant personal abuse that sadly is prevalent on this and I presume other forums. I will never indulge in personal abuse as a result. for me it is just dull. Others plainly have different views and priorities as is their right.
You may not regard it as important to try to understand cost differences between Lg1 and Lg2 club. that's fine, that's your right. I think it is in order to try to determine whether staying fan owned albeit at a division or two lower than present is a realistic alternative to accepting outside ownership or whether it is "pie in the sky"
But you've made this point and asked this question so many times I am wondering what else anyone can possibly say that will add anything @DevC
At some stage soon I have to vote on the future direction of my football club. I may well end up not being a part owner after it. Your constant single issue derailing is not helping me make my mind up. It's adding nothing g new.
Give a rest eh?
you see you are making my point for me, Mr Middle. two posts from you now, both of which are personal conflict in nature, none of which actually says anything of substance. I think that's a shame (and to me boring). it seems to be what some people enjoy though.
meanwhile this article gave us one pertinent fact that I certainly didn't know before.
We now know that the break even budget in Lg1 without outside loans/investment is £1.2m
We know that TV and solidarity payments are around £1.2m in lg1 and £600k in lg2.
I cant think of any major cost savings apart from player wages between operating at lg1 and Lg2.
We can surmise that gate money in lg2 would be lower than lg1 and National league lower than lg2.
Unless I am missing something (and i would genuinely be grateful if someone could point out what), given this new piece of information, I cant see how the "club should live within its means" argument makes any sense at all.
Not sure how my posts are any more personal than yours but if you can't see how your last paragraph is exactly what I am talking about you never will.
We all know you only make these demands of other people so you can shoot down their reply with another straw man argument just to make you feel superior on a forum. Even you know it.
Just to follow up on @wwfcblue’s post and comment of our budget behind at the max of £2.7M.
Obviously I’ve no actual figures, but to reach this figure we would have to assume that we are paying in excess of £1.5M for the 10 or 11 new players we have acquired since the ‘investment’. (Remember we have lost El-Abd and CMS).
This seems somewhat unlikely to me and potentially destabilising to dressing room togetherness so I’d be surprised if GA would sanction it.
I think a budget of a little over £2M feels more likely - which is still low I believe in relation to a lot of L1 teams.
These are not my comments. Rob has clearly stated more than once that Gareth has the full SCMP available to him. Our turnover was 4.5 million last season and I see no reason why it is not heading along similar lines this season.
That means we are heading towards a playing budget of 2.7 million for the season and possibly more if increased turnover allows.
Madness, absolute madness!
Point taken @wwfcblue. I wasn’t questioning the actual budget available more what we have actually spent/planned to spend so far.
Do you thing GA would have splashed out over £1.5M on the new players? Maybe he has but it feels a lot to me
I would imagine we are pushing towards 2.5 with £200000 to spend in Jan
Not convinced but my guesswork is usually way out