Article on QPR - interesting facts about Brighton

[Moshe Gariani]

What they should do in the Premier League is make all tickets the same price and make it affordable. I would say £10.00 - £15.00 is acceptable. The money these clubs get from TV Revenue should be used to fund these cheaper tickets for all supporters then there wouldn't feel like there is such a gap. How it would work for example if say one club gets 40k attendance and another get 23k I wouldn't know. If that ends up with clubs having less money for players then eventually players wages and transfer fees would have come down, that would leave the players in a take it or leave it situation. One players earnings in a week being the same as someone who has to work three years for the same amount, just shows how out of control the whole system has got.

But what about the "free market"...? The price of anything should be the maximum amount that those with power can extract from those without. Isn't that what we all just voted for...?

 

[JBenno]

% of wages to turnover is probably the most crucial and revealing.

QPR top of course, with a mindboggling 195%. Plucky little Bournemouth not far behind in 2nd with 172%.

We're 16th with 85%.

This man has the right idea.

In my humble opinion, this is what FFP should have been built around in the first place.
Essentially, it has always been players wages(and long contracts) rather than transfer fees that have put clubs into financial meltdown.

Maybe If the FFP rules were say; Your wage bill must be no more that 95% of the clubs annual turnover.

Then if an owner wants to make generous investment and stump up £5 million in transfer fees then he/she can, but club must still stay within wage structure above, surely that helps safeguard longer term liquidity of clubs finances.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

No they weren't

Sorry - I must have missed that. I can only recall a few Bournemouth fans on here telling us that they were compliant. how much did they overspend by?

 

[KZNSeagull]

This man has the right idea.

In my humble opinion, this is what FFP should have been built around in the first place.
Essentially, it has always been players wages(and long contracts) rather than transfer fees that have put clubs into financial meltdown.

Maybe If the FFP rules were say; Your wage bill must be no more that 95% of the clubs annual turnover.

Then if an owner wants to make generous investment and stump up £5 million in transfer fees then he/she can, but club must still stay within wage structure above, surely that helps safeguard longer term liquidity of clubs finances.

There is already a rule in the PL that "only" 52m of the current TV revenue can be spent on wages (leaving them 20m odd left over) - they can spend more than that of course from other income sources. As a result, 14 clubs in the PL actually posted a profit in 2013/14. There is no such rule in the Championship as yet, hence why QPR can take the piss. The FFP rules in League 1 and 2 are based on the percentage of turnover principle, I believe.

 

[El Presidente]

Sorry - I must have missed that. I can only recall a few Bournemouth fans on here telling us that they were compliant. how much did they overspend by?

Sorry thought you were talking about QPR.

B'Muff should be okay due to the Lallana money.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Sorry thought you were talking about QPR.

B'Muff should be okay due to the Lallana money.

ah ok. I'd have to be VERY way off the mark to think QPR were compliant!

 

[El Presidente]

There is already a rule in the PL that "only" 52m of the current TV revenue can be spent on wages (leaving them 20m odd left over) - they can spend more than that of course from other income sources. As a result, 14 clubs in the PL actually posted a profit in 2013/14. There is no such rule in the Championship as yet, hence why QPR can take the piss. The FFP rules in League 1 and 2 are based on the percentage of turnover principle, I believe.

You are wrong there. The rule is if your wage bill is over £52m then you can only increase the amount spent on wages by £4m a year each season PLUS any increase in non TV revenues.

So a club such as Manchester United could increase their wage bill by £4m + £30m (increase in shirt sponsorship) + £35m (New Adidas deal compared to Nike) which is a total increase of £69m

 

[Stat Brother]

You are wrong there. The rule is if your wage bill is over £52m then you can only increase the amount spent on wages by £4m a year each season PLUS any increase in non TV revenues.

So a club such as Manchester United could increase their wage bill by £4m + £30m (increase in shirt sponsorship) + £35m (New Adidas deal compared to Nike) which is a total increase of £69m

and if they had a 'stadium' hotel, (assuming there isn't one) what then?

 

[KZNSeagull]

You are wrong there. The rule is if your wage bill is over £52m then you can only increase the amount spent on wages by £4m a year each season PLUS any increase in non TV revenues.

So a club such as Manchester United could increase their wage bill by £4m + £30m (increase in shirt sponsorship) + £35m (New Adidas deal compared to Nike) which is a total increase of £69m

Oh poo. Well I did read it in one of the newspapers, so I should have known better.

But that still leaves a chunk of TV revenue money left over though, doesn't it? So it has acted as a sort of wage bill cap so the clubs cannot blow their entire income on wages?

 

[El Presidente]

Oh poo. Well I did read it in one of the newspapers, so I should have known better.

But that still leaves a chunk of TV revenue money left over though, doesn't it? So it has acted as a sort of wage bill cap so the clubs cannot blow their entire income on wages?

Yup. The aim is for more of the money to be kept by the club owners.

 

[Hiney]

and if they had a 'stadium' hotel, (assuming there isn't one) what then?

I think there is.

Hotel Football, owned by a few ex-players, right next to Old Trafford

 

[KZNSeagull]

Yup. The aim is for more of the money to be kept by the club owners.

Surely you mean kept within the club for a rainy day?

 

[Will_dance_for_chocolate]

% of wages to turnover is probably the most crucial and revealing.

QPR top of course, with a mindboggling 195%. Plucky little Bournemouth not far behind in 2nd with 172%.

We're 16th with 85%.

And yet they were FFP compliant. Somehow.

Now sure if it is willful ignorance or genuine lack of understanding of the rules.

If the rules state you can lose £8 million in a season and so you set your budget so that you lose £8 million in the season because the owner wants to invest as much as he can within the rules... with turnover being about £10 million, that would give you a potential wage bill of £18 million if playing trading is about equal. So that 172% is accounted for within the FFP rules you all so love here.

Funny how so many on here were absolutely convinced beyond all doubt that AFCB would fail FFP but they passed. Just within the rules as any club that wants to invest the maximum they can would be. Here's another newsflash - they would have passed the next year as well even if they hadn't been promoted. As it is, I think the first PL money arrives in this years accounts now so the numbers are all going to look a little silly.

Oh yeah, and the Lallana money won't arrive until the subsequent years accounts and so Mr Swiss Ramble's player trading numbers for AFCB look a little dubious to say the least. I'd imagine there are plenty of other glaring inaccuracies in there as well. For example, in his attendance stats some clubs announce tickets sold (you), others announce people in the stadium (AFCB). That one isn't his fault but shows there are going to be significant difficulties in some of the comparisons he's trying to draw.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Maybe Financial Foul Play got it all wrong and should instead have actually looked at capping wages as a maximum 100 % of turnover ?

 

[BBassic]

Couple of QPR accounts on Twatter whining now about our intentions to challenge any proposed deal they work out with the FL.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Couple of QPR accounts on Twatter whining now about our intentions to challenge any proposed deal they work out with the FL.

I would imagine that it is not just us that would challenge a deal!

 

[BBassic]

I would imagine that it is not just us that would challenge a deal!

Absolutely.

The balls of it is astounding.

"FFP rules? You know what they say, rules are meant to be broken."

Personally, I hope they continue overspending and continue being relegated until they spend themselves into oblivion.

 

[chaileyjem]

I'd imagine there are plenty of other glaring inaccuracies in there as well.

Given that the very impressive Mr Ramble spends his entire life poring over football finance data by analysing lines and lines of numbers that are published in the clubs accounts, and it would be illegal for those accounts to be wrong, I'd imagine there aren't.

 

[El Presidente]

Now sure if it is willful ignorance or genuine lack of understanding of the rules.

If the rules state you can lose £8 million in a season and so you set your budget so that you lose £8 million in the season because the owner wants to invest as much as he can within the rules... with turnover being about £10 million, that would give you a potential wage bill of £18 million if playing trading is about equal. So that 172% is accounted for within the FFP rules you all so love here.
.

I've got no issue with 'Muff going up. They played good attacking football and Tommy Elphick is a Woodingdean boy so fine by me.

I think you're a little wrong in your calculations though.

If Turnover is £10 million and wages £18 million that is well and good. But surely the club has other overheads too? Heat, light, medical bills, insurance etc etc? Don't they have to be taken into consideration ?

 

[Will_dance_for_chocolate]

Given that the very impressive Mr Ramble spends his entire life poring over football finance data by analysing lines and lines of numbers that are published in the clubs accounts, and it would be illegal for those accounts to be wrong, I'd imagine there aren't.

The accounts don't have to be wrong to be presenting figures slightly differently under the same heading. There's an actually an awful lot you can do with the numbers which is totally legal but can paint very different pictures of the same business. And that's just basic accounting that you would get from any High St accountant without going into some of the more exotic things out there.

So he may be a finance genius but there are places where he isn't comparing apples with apples, knowingly or unknowingly. Sometimes people just have to make the best use of the numbers they have available to them. The undeniable attendance stats example I already gave being one example. Again, I'll point you to the player trading as being another example of an issue with the numbers.