Next seasons finance (1 Viewer)

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Lets make it clear from the start anything here can only be a best guess, there is precious little detail or explanation available. So this is just an opinion at best

As a starting point this is the explanation I received from FL regarding which player wages count in the salary cost management protocol.


All player wages are included in the calculation. This covers basic wage, bonuses, appearances and any other add-ons. The calculation also includes PAYE, medical costs, cars and travel and also agent payments. Basically the full cost of a player is included. Players included are all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Players loaned out are deducted for the period of the loan. Players not included are youth players on a professional contract (i.e. players that have been in the club’s YD scheme and have been given a pro contract. They must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation
SCMP relates to playing staff only


The relevant percentage of turnover is 60% and turnover is defined as

Income generated by a club that forms part of its football activities such as, commercial revenues, gate revenues, solidarity payments, Football League payments, donations, net transfer income (transfer fees paid) all make up the relevant income within the SCMP guidelines. The relevant income figure for SCMP will be a portion of total turnover, but not necessarily agree to total turnover figure in the accounts SCMP splits turnover into ‘normal income’ and ‘football fortune’ income. For League 1 clubs both these forms of income go into determining how much money a club can spend in relation to wages. In League 1’s case, this is set at 60% of turnover. This is calculated on an on-going basis going forward.

- the turnover that will count is most income the club will receive
- new share issues will count but not new loans or the conversion of loans
- the proportion is 60% of the budgeted turnover in that season not the previous one. The budget is I understand reviewed quarterly by FL and revised if necessary
- sales of players will increase the budget (by 60% of the proceeds) but purchases of players will reduce the calculation
- youth players given a professional contract and 20yo or under will not count in the calculation

lets be generous and say crowds stick at an average of 3000 (currently could argue much lower), 23 games ignoring cups at an average ticket price excl VAT £8 = £552000
other income will be
- TV monies
- League & cup prize monies
- shares of cup gate receipts
- advertising & sponsorship
- share of food & car park income
- program sales & tote
- shop sales

excluding cup runs at Arsenal then the turnover to be budgeted for looks woeful, am struggling to see much past £2m but say it gets to £3m. You really can not budget for an "Arsenal game" each year

that means a player budget, excluding players given professional contract and under 20, of £1.8m. Above that figure and we are in embargo. looks like a very young squad (as per waggots comments) with some current players not retained from the current squad to me. Bare in mind if players sold and a replacement bought then the base for the budget is increased by the sale but decreased by the purchase - that could mean no purchases and youth plus freebies plus loans to balance the calculation

So income £3m
Player wages £2.25m (inc the youngsters )
Rent say £170k as rumoured at Sixfields
Manager, Coaching, commercial & other staff and directors? well I would guess at some cost cutting being needed, but say it can be done for £600k
general administrative costs (shop rent, rates, shop purchases, insurance, travel, league fees, kit, advertising, ticketing etc etc) say £1m
Academy costs £500K
Interest on loans from ARVO & SISU funds. Well in 2013 that was £1.8m and they plan to have drawn down more from ARVO since - say interest £2m in total currently

costs at just over £6.5m - losses £3.5m+ (if lucky ?) before player sales or further loans

If SP thought the going was tough this year next season looks even harder
 

Last edited:

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
OSB can you clear something up for me?

It says football related activities count. So would any extra income from say concerts be allowed to count to FFP?
 

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
£1.8 million

Thats £34,600 a week on wages.

Even with senior squad of 16, thats just over £2k a week per player.
 

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
Great post OSB but not we need to hear lol we need and pray for hope.

Also I may add that you do things by the book but with sisu in charge, the FL are scared of them so it wouldn't surprise me if sisu fiddle the numbers to make budgets appear better.
 

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
So income £3m
Player wages £2.25m (inc the youngsters )
Rent say £170k as rumoured at Sixfields
Manager, Coaching, commercial & other staff and directors? well I would guess at some cost cutting being needed, but say it can be done for £600k
general administrative costs (shop rent, rates, shop purchases, insurance, travel, league fees, kit, advertising, ticketing etc etc) say £1m
Academy costs £500K
Interest on loans from ARVO & SISU funds. Well in 2013 that was £1.8m and they plan to have drawn down more from ARVO since - say £2m in total currently

costs at just over £6m - losses £3.5m

would be an awful lot less losses if they paid £400k rent (or less) in short term to play at the Ricoh !
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
OSB can you clear something up for me?

It says football related activities count. So would any extra income from say concerts be allowed to count to FFP?

I would think it would as it would be covered by "commercial incomes" defined as renting the football stadium out
 

covmark

Well-Known Member
Would the FL show us some leniency with regards to ffp due to the clubs circumstances. They've bent over backwards for sisu before, why not again?
 

SkyBlue_Bear83

Well-Known Member
Would the FL show us some leniency with regards to ffp due to the clubs circumstances. They've bent over backwards for sisu before, why not again?

I doubt it as surely all the other clubs in the division would start complaining, bit different to the FL only deducting us 10 points as it was a bit of a special case and we were the only club in that position.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
It would explain why we did'nt sign Mcgeouch or Boyd in January.

Which then begs the question of the input of equity November December time to remove the embargo that was'nt really an embargo and was more designed to meet FFP as we must have been exceeding 60% of turnover in player salaries.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
1.8 million is still a competitive budget in this division, wasn't this season only 2 million?

I think you will find the actual budget originally set was for bigger crowds which would give bigger other income (food, programs, etc) with a better prize money etc because we were supposed to not get the 10 points deduction. but has changed since because of the crowds but then add to it transfer fees received, the adds on from previous transfers plus the cup run incomes especially Arsenal and the wage budget was set at more than £1.8m in my opinion and the actual spend was more still because of the ages of some of the players

But truth is no one actually knows
 

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
It would explain why we did'nt sign Mcgeouch or Boyd in January.

Which then begs the question of the input of equity November December time to remove the embargo that was'nt really an embargo and was more designed to meet FFP as we must have been exceeding 60% of turnover in player salaries.

if the penalty is only an embargo, its not like we arent used to it
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
I doubt it as surely all the other clubs in the division would start complaining, bit different to the FL only deducting us 10 points as it was a bit of a special case and we were the only club in that position.

Think from the remarks of one or two managers that is already the case.
 

skybluesam1987

New Member
I don't think it really matters how much income they generate. They will use it to cover the losses and pay themselves rather than put quality on the pitch.
I doubt very much whether there will be anything other than kids or older players who can't get a club and will play for peanuts.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I doubt it as surely all the other clubs in the division would start complaining, bit different to the FL only deducting us 10 points as it was a bit of a special case and we were the only club in that position.

This is a frequently used argument. I thought one if the set criteria for being a member of the football league was that while you are a member you cannot take league action against the league and to do so have to resign from membership

I stand to be corrected as cannot find this anywhere but no one has to my knowledge ever attempted legal action.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
This is a frequently used argument. I thought one if the set criteria for being a member of the football league was that while you are a member you cannot take league action against the league and to do so have to resign from membership

I stand to be corrected as cannot find this anywhere but no one has to my knowledge ever attempted legal action.

Think it was Leeds who were threatening legal action against a points deduction for admin but were told if they were taking legal action the FL wouldn't issue the share to them. Not sure what would happen if clubs who already have a share started legal action. Anyway there could be a lot of complaining before it gets to the stage of other clubs taking legal action and if it was multiple clubs that could be a headache for the league.
 
Think it was Leeds who were threatening legal action against a points deduction for admin but were told if they were taking legal action the FL wouldn't issue the share to them. Not sure what would happen if clubs who already have a share started legal action. Anyway there could be a lot of complaining before it gets to the stage of other clubs taking legal action and if it was multiple clubs that could be a headache for the league.

But didn't Greg Clarke say sisu and acl were threatening legal action against the football league at the start of the groundshare move
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
But didn't Greg Clarke say sisu and acl were threatening legal action against the football league at the start of the groundshare move

I suspect (total guesswork to be fair!) that SISUs stance was if you don't let us play at Sixfields you'll have to kick us out of the league and if you kick us out of the league we will take legal action. Wouldn't matter about the golden share then. If they would have done it or not, or whatever legal action it was they were threatening, who knows but SISU won the game of chicken.
 

The Prefect

Active Member
excluding cup runs at Arsenal then the turnover to be budgeted for looks woeful, am struggling to see much past £2m but say it gets to £3m.

Great post.

You really are being generous at £3m. Like you I can only get to between £1.5m and £2m. With gate receipts struggling to top £800,000 if the rumour of free tickets is anything to go by then things will be a real struggle.

I can only see a few senior professionals - the rest will be sold or allowed to leave. The suggested sale of Wilson and others is a reasonable shout as it will be required to balance the boots.

Not looking good for next year. I do think that SISU are budgeting for one or perhaps two more relegations before any stadium will be built. After all, they do keep saying things will get worse before they get better.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
1.8 million is still a competitive budget in this division, wasn't this season only 2 million?

I think you missed several points here.

1) £1.8M is a below average budget for L2, it certainly is not set with promotion in mid, it is a survival budget.
2) Even with that budget and OSB's generous calculations the club still loses £3.5M next season.. or sells all its remaining player assets (probably sells and takes a smaller loss).
3) The club could break even at the Ricoh, so why are huge losses being taken?

The situation is simply unsustainable..

Not looking good for next year. I do think that SISU are budgeting for one or perhaps two more relegations before any stadium will be built. After all, they do keep saying things will get worse before they get better.

Pretty sure they'll accept the drop to D4, it cuts salaries considerably. Don't think even that lot would be stupid enough to let the club drop into the conference.


OSB, did you allow for finding £0.5M to run a Cat 2 academy?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I think you missed several points here.

1) £1.8M is a below average budget for L2, it certainly is not set with promotion in mid, it is a survival budget.
2) Even with that budget and OSB's generous calculations the club still loses £3.5M next season.. or sells all its remaining player assets (probably sells and takes a smaller loss).
3) The club could break even at the Ricoh, so why are huge losses being taken?

The situation is simply unsustainable..



Pretty sure they'll accept the drop to D4, it cuts salaries considerably. Don't think even that lot would be stupid enough to let the club drop into the conference.


OSB, did you allow for finding £0.5M to run a Cat 2 academy?

Yeovil got promoted on a £750,000 wage budget.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Yeovil got promoted on a £750,000 wage budget.

Maybe so but if you go back say 10 years and look at all the teams who have been promoted is it more common for teams with bigger or smaller playing budgets to achieve promotion?
 

Como

Well-Known Member
This sort of goes with the question about how much the Club is worth.

As a going concern, well nothing, potential possibly but how do you value that.

I was wondering whether wage costs include taxes and all the add ons. Presumably it does, just not the player gross.

All comes back to how the current owners are selling the situation to their funders, it seems to make no obvious sense.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
Maybe so but if you go back say 10 years and look at all the teams who have been promoted is it more common for teams with bigger or smaller playing budgets to achieve promotion?

Don't worry, poor Grendel doesn't understand statistics & stuff like that, he can't even count to 150.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top