skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
Which still has nothing to do with increased attendances increases our budget myth does it?...
Get behind the team (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter Gosb
- Start date
Nick
Administrator
Surely you would keep an eye on the % of the wage bill to the revenue? Don't forget the Mowbray season there was a massive discount on season tickets without much of an increase
Increased attendances for 7 or 8 games when we are flying high isn't going to see a massive jump in the wage bill, you would think the fact that Mowbray brought in plenty of contracted players between December and March shows more money going out on wages too. Whether they were shit or not is irrelevant.
mark82
Super Moderator
Or Joe Cole for that matter.
skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
So you just guess? and yes there wage would of been low, look at the previous clubs they came from.
Nick
Administrator
Aren't you just guessing too?
8 players (I think without checking) were added to the payroll in the Winter transfer window.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
If they were each on 1k a week, that's 3k in total a week. 12k a month for 6 months. 72k in total. Not factoring in NI, and other associated costs with employing people.
I said 1k a week as that is below the L1 average, I don't know the actual amount but can't imagine it being less. After all they were players with experience of football at a higher level.
I said 1k a week as that is below the L1 average, I don't know the actual amount but can't imagine it being less. After all they were players with experience of football at a higher level.
skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
I would think Maddisons money helped rather than increased attendances. After all people harp on about how Maddisons money went into the club...
And yes, people saying increased attendances increases the budget are guessing, because they cannot provide proof of it.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
didn't Mowbray say Hunt was literally playing for nothing? Not sure about the other two.
Nick
Administrator
As well as Rose, Lorentson, Jones, Gadzhev. (Sayoud and Spence wouldn't have been on much).
People seem to miss that players will be paid no matter how shit they are, the same as if we sign 25 strikers and none of them can score and people just keep shouting bring in more strikers as if the others don't exist suddenly.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Nothing for a footballer? Or nothing for your average man/woman in the street?
Nick
Administrator
What do you mean "harp on"?
You are just guessing yourself, but you are telling others they are wrong because they are?
Again, it's a case of looking at wages compared to income surely.
skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
Hence why we sold a player and brought in free transfers...
mark82
Super Moderator
Higher than expected attendances allowed Mowbray to spend in 2015/16 winter window. What he brought in was crap has beens who were overpriced (wage wise). Just because it wasn't spent wisely doesn't mean it wasn't spent.
More money in means more money available to spend (not all will be playing budget). Suspect much of the activity seen so far this summer is funded by the Checkatrade win.
Nick
Administrator
And bought Jones...
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Jones cost a fee. Ghadzev had played international football. Regarding the Maddison money, we don't know how much we were paid up front.
Edit. Nick beat me to it.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Also we have next to no income for June and July.
mark82
Super Moderator
Maddison was sold on the last day of the transfer window. That would likely have gone into the summer budget, however, as we know, most money from sales will go into covering operating losses. The only reason we have been sustainable the last couple of years is transfer money coming in.
skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
That was in the summer wasn't it, before the sale of Maddsion. People are on about the transfers we made in the winter, and alleging that increased attendances was why we brought in the players.
Look just find proof of what people are claiming, that's all I originally said... There isn't any proof.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
So without player sales the income through the gates (and other income) is insufficient to cover the club's expenditure. Selling players to cover a deficit is bad news and completely unsustainable.
mark82
Super Moderator
Did we pay a fee for Reid or is he just expensive wage wise?
mark82
Super Moderator
Nope, last summer after the sale of Maddison.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
The only reason most clubs at L1 and L2 are sustainable. Just some of our fans expect no sales and transfers in. Sky and the PL have ruined football and distorted people's view on football.
skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
So if we start doing well, and are near the top come Christmas when the gates will rise over the festive period like they did 2015/2016, our budget will increase?
Alright then. Can't wait.
Alright then. Can't wait.
Nick
Administrator
No, it was after the sale of Maddison.
Nobody is saying the increased attendances were the very reason, it was in reply to that the season we were "flying high" the manager did bring in plenty of players, they will be costing money.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
He was a free I believe. Possible signing on fee. Definitely a top earner at the club.
Nick
Administrator
It will depend on income / revenue surely and how we do outside of the 4 or 5 games we get a high attendance?
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
he said he was on a pound a week, (think footballers can't play for nothing), he just wanted to play. He said it at that evening he did down the Butts, though I wasn't there so that's come to me 2nd hand.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. The others can't have been on a £1 though. Surprised it didn't make the news.
Nick
Administrator
That's the thing, people don't seem to get the concept that lower league clubs will be using player sales and any money it generates to run the club and a decent chunk of ticket money. All of this "why should the fans pay to run the club" is a bit random.
I'd love for there to be level playing field where there are very strict FFP rules, parachute payments don't help either.
People see the Man City's and Chelseas and think it should happen at lower league clubs, it's all well and good when people try but look at Leyton Orient who were paying people £20k a week in League One, a few on £5k - £8k a week too. How did that work out when the owner decided he didn't want to throw all his money in any more?
Adge
Well-Known Member
Yes I stopped enjoying it, but again like everyone else, am looking forward to the football season beginning. I'm not letting Sisu rule my life, I'm looking at away games only so I will still be getting my fix but am not investing (season tickets etc/club coaches/merchandise etc) in Ccfc anymore (which is owned by Sisu).
The straw that broke the camels back for me was Fisher at the Sbt meeting, as if things weren't bad enough at the time, brazen as you like,when asked about season tickets or lack of, saying that he will just be cutting the budget to suit. People still it seems,are happy to go along with that and it doesn't matter what these people do or say. Lets not forget 2 relegations, no ground, an academy that could possibly be at a school in the future, shares that had been in generations of families removed by them, taking the team out of Coventry, this is all Sisu's doing. No doubt Fisher was being honest but his attitude on that night and also Seppala's outside the court the other day tells its own story with regard to the fans or "customers" if you prefer.
But yes your right, it's a double edged sword for me as I still want to go-hence away games only, so I am not cutting off my nose to spite my face.:emoji_ok_hand:
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Ah, but the owner should just walk away and let the next person do it. Rinse and repeat. Do keep up.
Nick
Administrator
That's the thing, they throw money in and are expected to walk away then for the next fool to do it.
I'd much prefer living within our means, we would do with fan ownership anyway.
Nick
Administrator
I like how you put the (which is owned by SISU) to justify the stance of actively starving CCFC of income
At least you just say it straight up though!
He said they would cut outgoings to suit income, which is what people have been saying for a long while would happen.
mark82
Super Moderator
Potentially, if we need additions to kick on, I can see that happening. Unfortunately, without knowing the budget before and after we won't know. Maybe a question for Mark Robins after the January window if attendances are good.
Salaries at the club have continued to go down year on year as we have been moved towards the self sustainable model nut budget will certainly be set according to ticker sales. That is what puts most money in the bank.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
He did say he will cut the budget to suit, that is why people are saying NOPM doesn't work, a total boycott doesn't work. For the very reason you have said. Relegations happen, it's football. For the whole time I have supported the club we have been in a relegation battle, before and during SISU. No ground when they arrived, do I have to keep pointing that out? An academy you hammer at every opportunity despite it's success. Shares that the Messiah Elliott had helped collect but he's absolved of blame for some bizarre reason. Didn't Elliott also want to close the academy? Would that not be worse than an academy at a school? Why is it bad to have an academy at a school. Surely the school would benefit from the facilities too, could it not be argued it would integrate the club into the community more?
Oh and one more thing, were you not the person who made a crude remark about Haynes and his injury? Then you have a go at TF and his attitude because he said the club has to fund itself? I think you should look at your own attitude if it was you that made the remark.
Apologies if it wasn't you.