£10m annual wage bill.

andymcnish said:
But the £2.5m will be treated as a one-off cost for this year, and this year's parachute payment also technically counts as income towards FFP, so there is still plenty of headroom.

What they have to do is get the club to break-even next year (as no parachute payment). I thought they said the gap was only £2-3m at the end of last year, so getting Catts/Oviedo and Love's wages off the profit and loss for next season gets us more or less where we need to be.

That is all perfectly sensible, as we can't guarantee going up...

What would be interesting is to know how much of the parachute payment (if any) is left allocated.

It might be sensible to keep whatever is left as an emergency fund anyway but it would nice to know numbers..
Click to expand...
I agree it's not a problem this year. But it still needs planning for the worst. Even if we do go up, any revenue rise is likely to be swallowed up by promotion related wage increases, so it still makes sense to keep the overall bill controllable now.
 


daveybigpotatoes said:
We are clear of it. Wages at 10m a year, no legacy transfers, parachute presumably available to some extent. I think we now need to get promoted.
Click to expand...
the risk they haveto worry about is..the current wage level is very much ok in this league when we have para money..
but what if we dont go up? this level of wages in the lower divison next year could be catastrophic...
so do they..roll the dice and go all out for promotion..r do they hold some/most of the para back for next year?
i think they are trying to sqaure the cicle by getubg investors in who can do the job next year that the paras are doing this year, and if we go up, the job they do changes to funding a prommotion push inthe league above.
 
andymcnish said:
But the £2.5m will be treated as a one-off cost for this year, and this year's parachute payment also technically counts as income towards FFP, so there is still plenty of headroom.

What they have to do is get the club to break-even next year (as no parachute payment). I thought they said the gap was only £2-3m at the end of last year, so getting Catts/Oviedo and Love's wages off the profit and loss for next season gets us more or less where we need to be.

That is all perfectly sensible, as we can't guarantee going up...

What would be interesting is to know how much of the parachute payment (if any) is left allocated.

It might be sensible to keep whatever is left as an emergency fund anyway but it would nice to know numbers..
Click to expand...

100% this, a failing business that was £150 million in debt, with a £40 million annual wage bill, had been relegated twice is going to be run as a streamlined sustainable going concern within 18 months of the new owners coming in....Not only that but they have a playing budget more than 50% higher than the next biggest teams in the league.....The future looks bright, this is how you build a football club rather than a rich mans play thing that he can (and did) get bored with.

Whoever owns the club, it must never be allowed to be run like it was in the past.
 
kildaremackem said:
the risk they haveto worry about is..the current wage level is very much ok in this league when we have para money..
but what if we dont go up? this level of wages in the lower divison next year could be catastrophic...
so do they..roll the dice and go all out for promotion..r do they hold some/most of the para back for next year?
i think they are trying to sqaure the cicle by getubg investors in who can do the job next year that the paras are doing this year, and if we go up, the job they do changes to funding a prommotion push inthe league above.
Click to expand...
Is it not the case that the ratio is wages to revenue? If that is the case holding back the parachute is irrelevant as it is recognised as revenue in the period it relates to. It will help cash flow wise but not with the ratio (if I've got the basis right).

I personally dont believe that Sunderland couldn't afford to have Championship players on Championship wages next year due to a league restriction. This doesn't make sense to me. Charlton presumably have invested in player wages for example, from a L1 base that is relative to their income - who is saying they might get in trouble? Barnsley? Others?
 
daveybigpotatoes said:
Is it not the case that the ratio is wages to revenue? If that is the case holding back the parachute is irrelevant as it is recognised as revenue in the period it relates to. It will help cash flow wise but not with the ratio (if I've got the basis right).

I personally dont believe that Sunderland couldn't afford to have Championship players on Championship wages next year due to a league restriction. This doesn't make sense to me. Charlton presumably have invested in player wages for example, from a L1 base that is relative to their income - who is saying they might get in trouble? Barnsley? Others?
Click to expand...
of course we could do a barnsley or a charlton..my point is if we want to do more than that...the first point you make is a good on though...about the ratio..? thoughts @Grumpy Old Man
 
It helps when attendances at the club are 3 times the league average. Other clubs in league 3 would be hugely profitable with gates of 30000. Anyway onwards and upwards
 
kildaremackem said:
of course we could do a barnsley or a charlton..my point is if we want to do more than that...the first point you make is a good on though...about the ratio..? thoughts @Grumpy Old Man
Click to expand...
His first point is entirely correct. On the second, Championship wages covers an enormous range of values. Our current wage bill would be low-middle in Championship terms already. Most clubs are running at ridiculous wage:turnover percentages, and the EFL are getting increasingly concerned about sustainability. Wage structures in the Championship are overdue a correction, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an extension of the L1 rules to it in the near future.
 
daveybigpotatoes said:
1. if you agree to terminate a contract you take the P&L hit immediately as it becomes an 'onerous contract'. So even if Catts agreed a two year pay off you would recognise it all immediately - it helps cash flow obviously but not P&L
2. In the last set of financial statements 'creditors due for periods in excess of one year' were virtually zero. As such there are no payments due this season for deals done before Donald's take over. There will be new costs when new deals are done but presumably our current deals are very small so not particularly significant. If Charlie used this as an excuse it was BS.
Click to expand...

On this - does it apply within FFP? Not clear whether the 60% is taken on an accounting basis or a cash flow basis
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
His first point is entirely correct. On the second, Championship wages covers an enormous range of values. Our current wage bill would be low-middle in Championship terms already. Most clubs are running at ridiculous wage:turnover percentages, and the EFL are getting increasingly concerned about sustainability. Wage structures in the Championship are overdue a correction, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an extension of the L1 rules to it in the near future.
Click to expand...
The £10 mil or £12 mil? Either way it is very much at the lower end, rather than mid.
 
JimmyQuinn said:
On this - does it apply within FFP? Not clear whether the 60% is taken on an accounting basis or a cash flow basis
Click to expand...

Just read up on it

"17. Redundancy and/or Compromise payments made to Players (e.g. the payment of the balance of the contract as a lump sum which has been discounted to represent accelerated receipt) should also be included for the purposes of determining Player Related Expenditure. Where redundancy payments are staged they should be allocated into the SCMP Documentation for the Reporting Period in which the payments fall due. "

So if players are being paid into future seasons it will affect our wage bill for FFP purposes
 
JimmyQuinn said:
Just read up on it

"17. Redundancy and/or Compromise payments made to Players (e.g. the payment of the balance of the contract as a lump sum which has been discounted to represent accelerated receipt) should also be included for the purposes of determining Player Related Expenditure. Where redundancy payments are staged they should be allocated into the SCMP Documentation for the Reporting Period in which the payments fall due. "

So if players are being paid into future seasons it will affect our wage bill for FFP purposes
Click to expand...
Thank you-so IF they are getting paid again next year it will appear in next years ratio as well?
 
JimmyQuinn said:
Just read up on it

"17. Redundancy and/or Compromise payments made to Players (e.g. the payment of the balance of the contract as a lump sum which has been discounted to represent accelerated receipt) should also be included for the purposes of determining Player Related Expenditure. Where redundancy payments are staged they should be allocated into the SCMP Documentation for the Reporting Period in which the payments fall due. "

So if players are being paid into future seasons it will affect our wage bill for FFP purposes
Click to expand...
Very interesting thanks - I was wrong then
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
I agree it's not a problem this year. But it still needs planning for the worst. Even if we do go up, any revenue rise is likely to be swallowed up by promotion related wage increases, so it still makes sense to keep the overall bill controllable now.
Click to expand...

How much realistically, without further investment, do you reckon we may have. Seeing as PP will be finished I'd imagine we'll get the solidarity payment....is that £6m?. Extra match day revenue won't be much given the price freeze and the remarkable average we're already getting....maybe £1.5-2m there. Suppose stadium naming rights could make a difference given the higher profile of the league.
 
Lord Alfred said:
How much realistically, without further investment, do you reckon we may have. Seeing as PP will be finished I'd imagine we'll get the solidarity payment....is that £6m?. Extra match day revenue won't be much given the price freeze and the remarkable average we're already getting....maybe £1.5-2m there. Suppose stadium naming rights could make a difference given the higher profile of the league.
Click to expand...
I think you're pretty much in the right ball park there.
 
Lord Alfred said:
How much realistically, without further investment, do you reckon we may have. Seeing as PP will be finished I'd imagine we'll get the solidarity payment....is that £6m?. Extra match day revenue won't be much given the price freeze and the remarkable average we're already getting....maybe £1.5-2m there. Suppose stadium naming rights could make a difference given the higher profile of the league.
Click to expand...
and the para is £16m this year? so if we get solidarity money instead..and thats £6m..then we drop £10m from day one..i think your right about gate money etc, and maybe some uplift from spnsors..might get us say £3m of that £10m back..

that still leaves a £7m hole to be filled, and thats before exising players getitng payrises comes in, and before we buy a player. Thats why I ope they are keeping lots of the para money back..
 

Back
Top