If FFP didn't exist, would you like to see the Albion "go for it"?

[London Irish]

It's clear the money he had to spend on players and wages actually wasn't there - we're paying for it now. GP spent big as per option 1, that is what I am saying. Whether he thought that was enough for him is another discussion.

I don't get what you mean by "not there". When someone takes over a club, it's pretty implicit in that project they will have to fund the playing ambitions of the club, which were stated by pretty much by all as Premier League? That was what a lot of season ticket holders signed up for, don't you think?

 

[Man of Harveys]

Would you like the Albion to go bankrupt by splashing money about like a terminally ill chav on a day out at Bluewater, armed with a new credit card? Really? Are you completely nuts? Or is it maybe better just to be a little bit sensible? Remember: Leeds/Pompey and all that.

Poll to follow.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

If football doesn't adopt the same financial regimes that they have in American Football, wages (and agents' payments) will continue to increase. We then have the options to pay - or not pay.

If we pay then there are the potential sanctions of FFP to consider (although I remain to be convinced that ultimately the FL won't bottle it). But if we pay it and are successful in reaching the PL, then with the riches of TV and the parachute payments, we are most unlikely to go bust!

If we don't pay the "going rate" for players, and we have to compete each week with clubs that are either giving FFP the finger or have parachute payments, then inevitably the quality of the product will deteriorate (as I fear we are already beginning to see).

If people don't want to pay the price for your product, and you are not willing to improve the quality of the product, then you either have to reduce the price of the product or run the risk that you won't make the sales. You then eventually reach the point where your sales drop to a level where you can't pay the bills anyway!

So what I'm saying is you either have to improve the product, or reduce the price. People won't pay PL prices to watch L1 standard football forever.

And I really do not think that our cause has been helped by that nice Mr Barber constantly spouting "Premier League Ready" at every opportunity. It is blatantly obvious that we are far from PLR. We may have the ground and infrastructure but ultimately it is the depth and quality of the playing squad that will get PL promotion. Unrealistically raising hopes & expectations will do us no good in the long run.

I think the club are looking at it as trying to buy a player who is of a certain standard that will give us the best chance of reaching the play-offs on our budget, if the choice is between 2 players, one a player that has been heard of, and as such wants 15k per week, and another who is of equal ability but yet to prove themselves and would accept 10k per week. We are going down the second route and the players we sign may not be as well known, but it doesn't mean we are worse off in terms of squad ability however finding those cheaper options may take longer to get (more than 1 transfer window - Ulloa and Vicente took a couple of transfer windows to sign)

The more we spend on 1 player, it means we have less to spend on the rest of the squad so blowing a large part of the budget on a transfer fee and wages doesn't neccessarily mean we have the best squad we could have had for our whole budget. It doesn't mean that because they arn't household names or on big transfer fees that they arn't good enough for a competitive Championship squad.

 

[Greavsey]

Would you like the Albion to go bankrupt by splashing money about like a terminally ill chav on a day out at Bluewater, armed with a new credit card? Really? Are you completely nuts? Or is it maybe better just to be a little bit sensible? Remember: Leeds/Pompey and all that.

Poll to follow.

Which side of the coin are you actually on? I have seen a number of posts from you slating Barber and his prudent approach as well as his drive to commercialise the club and move away from the cottage industry that we have been in the past, which seems slightly at odds with your very sensible post here!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

What like Norwich you mean? (from the Guardian website)

NORWICH CITY

Accounts for the year to 31 May 2012

Ownership: Majority owned by Delia Smith and her husband Michael Wynn-Jones

Turnover: 12th in league, £75m (up from £23m in 2011)

Gate receipts: £11m

TV and media: £50m

Commercial activities: £14m

Wage bill: 19th, £37m (up from £18m in 2011)

Wages as proportion of turnover: 49%

Profit before tax: £16m (from £7m loss in 2011)

Net debt: Nil; £1m net cash in the bank

Interest payable: £2m

Highest-paid director: £1,533,000 paid to unnamed director (David McNally is the chief executive)

State they're in:

The happy state of a club properly enjoying the first year of promotion to the Premier League. Norwich used the massive TV and commercial windfall, with income up £52m, to pay off all debt while keeping wages under control. Recorded a loss of £7m to win promotion in 2011, as many Championship clubs do, then competed well, finishing 12th on the Premier League's second to lowest wage bill. Made a £16m profit but Delia Smith and her husband Michael Wynn-Jones, the 53% owners, still had a £2m interest free loan to the club outstanding at the end of the year.

Norwich had parachute payments in the season they got promotion to the Premier League so already had a higher standard of squad and therefore had less to spend to get it up to scratch.

If you look at the breakdown in finances for all the Premier League teams, how many broke even or even made a profit in the last set of accounts produced for that division? - nearly all lost money despite all that extra income from TV and prize money - the reason, the wages and transfer fees needed to be splashed to give them a chance of staying up, and normally the teams relegated are stuck with huge player contracts but no longer have the tv money or prize money to pay those bills and quite a few over the years have then suffered administration because of it (leeds, Pompey, etc) Bolton and Reading are in a bad way despite recently playing in the top flight and are swamped by debt and so on....

If Premier League football secured the long term future of a club, why do so many struggle financially? the reason, costs are too high, and FFP is being introduced to help fight that so lets hope it helps reduce player costs and helps secure the long term futures of all clubs, not just ours. If we have been sensible and are able to profit from this approach, even better, if we don't but we are still operating because of our approach for yeas to come then brilliant.

Fans demands for PL football and the so called riches it brings, and then the better players that have to be signed to meet fans demands to try to stay there are a big reason why player wages have increased so rapidly (as well as the extra money from Sky and alike) - Why hasn't this extra money filled the clubs coffers up and down the country and allowed them to develop their infrasture, and make it cheaper for the paying fans rather than line players and agents pockets? and why hasn't it mean that clubs long terrm futures are secure if the top flight was so profitable for clubs?

Care to list the losses and debts for all Premier League and Championship clubs and see if that extra money in the game has helped their long term futures?

 

[London Irish]

Which side of the coin are you actually on? I have seen a number of posts from you slating Barber and his prudent approach as well as his drive to commercialise the club and move away from the cottage industry that we have been in the past, which seems slightly at odds with your very sensible post here!

 

[Acker79]

I want to be entertained. As long as I'm enjoying the football I don't care.

I want an owner who is happy with the club, if that means investing (and losing) money at a level he is happy with in an effort to reach a certain level, great. As long as he doesn't abuse the club saddling it with unserviceable debts, or if he decides he doesn't want to continue supporting losses he has the class to fund the process of bringing the club back into a more sensible budget (since it was his choice to take the club out of budget in the first place) so as not to jeopardise the long term health of the club to satisfy his own whims.

If the owner is only happy with a limited investment, but runs the club to an otherwise sustainable budget, great.

I don't want an owner who throws money he doesn't have or can't afford to lose in an all or nothing gamble at getting to the premier league, though, leaving the club at risk of the repercussions of his reckless spending.

 

[Rugrat]

Tell that to Leeds, Portsmouth, Palace ...

It wasn't what they did, it was the manner in which they and their (more than) shady owners did it

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I would say "GO FOR IT !!!"

 

[Iggle Piggle]

If Premier League football secured the long term future of a club, why do so many struggle financially? the reason, costs are too high, and FFP is being introduced to help fight that so lets hope it helps reduce player costs and helps secure the long term futures of all clubs, not just ours. If we have been sensible and are able to profit from this approach, even better, if we don't but we are still operating because of our approach for yeas to come then brilliant.

Care to list the losses and debts for all Premier League and Championship clubs and see if that extra money in the game has helped their long term futures?

I was initially responding to the point that all PL clubs lose money. They don't - That is an over symplification of the issues (as is the initial posters want)

There are a myriad of reasons why PL clubs do not have a secure future. There is so much finance within the PL it attracts the 'wrong' owners. Portsmouth, Birmingham and Blackburn have been owned by people convicted or associated with money laundering in recent years. Three guesses why they aren't secure. Other owners have bet the house and lost getting to the 'next' level. Bolton are currently paying for that, Leeds have been for years on end. The commonality between all of this is mediocre players on long term high paying contracts.

I'd also separate the arguments. Whilst a lot of people on here point to Burnley and Palace being promoted on limited wage budgets the reality is that Cardiff had a 30 million plus wage bill in 2012/3 and QPR's will dwarf that when the figures come out. Both were promoted and did it the cold hard cash route and form the majority of promoted teams. There are plenty of owners seemingly wanting to follow that route. The Championship is full of teams losing money trying to get to the higher revenue stream and without looking it up, most Championship clubs will lose money - I can't see that trend discontinuing until FFP kicks in (if it ever does which I doubt). There are though, clubs in the Premier League making money. I think that trend will increase given the latest set of accounts have not shown the effect of the next TV deal. I used Norwich as an example. Swansea is another. Palace, dare I say it, have an owner with his head screwed on, Burnley won't bet the house either.

In short getting to the PL requires luck with the higher wage bill the better. The only way to secure a profit worth having is Premier League football. Albion's issue is that if TB wants to bankroll us even more (and who could blame him if he doesn't) to get there, he has no way of doing so within FFP unless we want to stick 2 fingers up at the rules. Whether you, I or TB likes it, the method to get there is via a sustainable wage bill and youth development. No-one can argue that isn't a sensible route forward but having been down the bet the house route under Gus, a lot of us (myself included) are having difficulty adjusting our expectations accordingly. My personal view is that 'Premier League Ready' and 'One club, One ambition' does little to help that. The marketing spiel against the reality just serves to piss people off.

The link for all PL clubs is here

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club