Michael McGuire has quoted this figure recently. Does anyone know if this is purely transfer fees (ie capital investment) and how it compares with recent seasons?
I think it's total payments less any receipts/reductions. This would include transfer fees in and out and wages in and saved due to getting rid of players less any payoffs.
I may have kisunderstood here, but thought that figure quoted was what the Allams would have to pay for us to break even with what we already have, i.e paying existing contracts and loan cimmitments etc. Didn`t think that this was a `transfer budget`. From reading the article it sys they have decied a competative budget but the £7m doesn`t seem to relate to that, I could be wrong tho !
Yes, my comment was related to what a football budget meant not what City are getting. I think we'll be happy with mid table for the next two seasons until we can get back to sensible wages.
I was thinking the same, i think its gonna be incase of waiting til the silly contracts come to an end and remain an average mid table team for a bit and then once we've got a wage budget that will allow us to get 5/6 decent players for what we are paying at least 3 of the team at the minute.
The £7m is just to make up the difference between our spending and our income, it's not for new investment.
I read the statement as the £7m is to cover costs AND the player budget (both fees and salary) for the coming season.
I would think it's a lot more than 7 million, Jimmy Bullard's going to be getting about 2.4 million by himself, I think I read somewhere that AP wanted to keep the operation figure below 15 million which would be in line with the incomings from ST sales, shirt sponsorship, merchandise and money from the league etc. I could be wrong but that sounds about right to me. Now I know that some of this has already been commited but, if we can maintain a balance between incomings and outgoings over the next season I think that would be good progress from what we had a year ago, ie a 30 odd million payroll
so was last seasons equivalent £15 million or was that something esle? Or does he mean that this season's total is £22 million compared to last season's £15 million? Oh fora good Professional journo to get to the bottom of the spin? Where is David Burns BA (Hons) when you need him? Oh I remember, he's broadcasting to 50 something year old housewives isnt he?
From what I understand 15 million a year is what can be spent on running the football club as thats about the income we generate at this time and last year we spent 22 million so someone has to find a way of refinancing summat or shelling out 7 mill to make up the difference from last season. I'm no David Burns BA(Hon) in broadcasting though so I could be wrong on me figures
Our income is over £20m and our wage bill is about £15m, at the moment our spending exceeds our income to the tune of roughly £7m, it's not complicated.
so above wages we have approx £7 million per annum of additional costs? its not complicated but that sounds simpler than the McGuire spin i read earlier. cheers number 1
God Imagine if Barlett still owned the club, it wouldnt be too rosey now would it. Perspective is not to be vanquished, I knew consilidation would be on the cards for the next few years after we were relegated anyways.
This won't be 'new' information this would all have come out as part of the due diligence process. Is this based on us funding in full or part the salaries of Bullard, Olifinjana et al?
It does include those costs, if we managed(by some miracle) to shift Jimmy, Oli, Ghlias, Killer and Macca completely, we would be just about self sufficient(though I suspect if we did, we'd spend some of that money trying to get back up).
When football people talk about budgets there is a big difference between cash accounting and accruals accounting. I'm not sure which they mean. Wages is pretty much the same. The big difference is transfer fees. If you buy a player for £6m you can pay it up front or over a period of time. For statutory accounts you spread the fee over the period of the contract. When a manager is handed a budget does that mean he's allowed to spend that or does it mean he can spend what would be accounted for in the next year? In business capital budgets are usually separate to expense budgets but with football players they are interlinked. I would guess that the numbers are only a broad guide else some people may panic and sell a good player for a few quid to balance the books!
I don't know if it's the same article but the one I saw said that NP had been given a competitive budget whether the big 5 left or not, but that to do that the Allams were going to have to put in £7M to make sure the club broke even. My interpretation was that the £7M was covering the costs of those 5 for the year. Kilbane £13k, Ghilas £16k, Olofinjana £28k, Bullard £45k, and McShane £20k comes out at £6.34M. I don't know how employer's NI works, or insurance costs but if all the other costs came out at 10% of the wages you'd be pretty much at £7M. That being the case, if any of them leave it wouldn't be to the benefit of the budget, it would just reduce the shortfall the Allams were making up. That said, the budget they've given NP must also be on the basis that if we don't go up this season it has to be payable from our income the season after, when the parachute payments drop down to £8M instead of £16M. (I know "prespent" but the Allams are probably just moving figures from one place to another with their investments/loans)
