Paul Barber: Why the Albion lose £1m a month

[Kevlar]

Cut through all of Barber's words ( and saying " bleating on " does not imo show supporters a lot of respect for legitimate questions ) the bottom line is the players are paid far too much money for what they do. That is the major factor and issue in English football and until that is addressed the whole system will forever be f*cked

this is the crux.
players exploiting us and tony

 

[Kevlar]

I know it is early but that is not working so far this season, with only one club with parachute payments in the top 6, only three in the top half. It goes against the thought you need this kind of money to be up there challenging.

and they still make a loss

 

[El Presidente]

My mistake thinking 46 games so 23 teams forgot about not playing ourselves.

At your age I'm surprised you have the energy.

 

[El Presidente]

I know it is early but that is not working so far this season, with only one club with parachute payments in the top 6, only three in the top half. It goes against the thought you need this kind of money to be up there challenging.

The Championship is fascinating in this regard. I'm currently researching it comparing to the other divisions in terms of the correlation between wages and league position, and it does seem to not confirm to the normal relationship.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The Championship is fascinating in this regard. I'm currently researching it comparing to the other divisions in terms of the correlation between wages and league position, and it does seem to not confirm to the normal relationship.

Quite.

 

[nwgull]

I know it is early but that is not working so far this season, with only one club with parachute payments in the top 6, only three in the top half. It goes against the thought you need this kind of money to be up there challenging.

This season is not exceptional; I don't remember it working that well for the the past couple of seasons: Last year the highest any relegated team finished was 4th; and that was with huge overspending in addition to the parachute payments. The season before none of the relegated teams even made the top 6, and one of them was relegated.

 

[spanish flair]

But isn't this what we keep hearing from the club, that we have to compete with clubs with this money advantage, as you say it has not been an advantage and we even witnessed the relegation of Wolves with such payments.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But isn't this what we keep hearing from the club, that we have to compete with clubs with this money advantage, as you say it has not been an advantage and we even witnessed the relegation of Wolves with such payments.

True. I mentioned in my previous post a report I read on clubs with parachute payments. I think as many clubs have been further related as have been promoted back.

 

[AZ Gull]

I've heard Barber talk about parachute payments being swallowed up servicing existing Premier League contracts on Championship income before. To now suggest clubs benefit from such payments is a little disingenuous.

But isn't this what we keep hearing from the club, that we have to compete with clubs with this money advantage, as you say it has not been an advantage and we even witnessed the relegation of Wolves with such payments.

I've heard it all now. Two supporters moaning that Paul Barber has the audacity to state a simple fact that we are competing with clubs who get massive parachute payments.

Are you guys for real? Or is your post just tongue-in-cheek, [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION], like your marvellous 1901 food threads?

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Cut through all of Barber's words ( and saying " bleating on " does not imo show supporters a lot of respect for legitimate questions ) the bottom line is the players are paid far too much money for what they do. That is the major factor and issue in English football and until that is addressed the whole system will forever be f*cked

There is no other industry on earth that behaves like football.
It seems to make up its own business rules and carries on regardless of being profitable or not. In almost all other industries the primary consideration in running a successful business is keeping wage costs under control. At multi-national level, cost cutting usually involves a high level of redundancies. Lower down the spectrum there are wage freezes or increases in line with inflation. The aim of most businesses is to make a profit which can then be re-invested and help the business grow further.
There is little or no profit being made in football and most clubs are making a loss. A lot of clubs are technically insolvent. I can think of no other industry that pays out in excess of 50% of its total income ( rising to 75-80% in some instances ) on employees wages and agents fees. No normal business could sustain that. Closure would rapidly follow. Football survives on wealthy benefactors and vast TV income. It does not survive on financial prudence.
Football makes up its own rules on rewarding success. It is a results business and to be successful it has to sell itself to its supporters and sponsors. In almost every other business environment, employees are incentivised to achieve success through bonuses but football doesn't seem to care a jot about this. Forget bonuses, lets just pay someone £5m a year irrespective of how he does. He may not perform up to an acceptable standard for weeks or months. He may be on or off the treatment table for ages. He may not get on with the manager and effectively ' downs tools ' until the manager is forced out. The point is, they still get their vast wages irrespective of performance. How can that be right? No wonder some of them are happy sitting out game after game. Imagine being paid to do nothing. Its a no brainer. We'd all get some of that if we could. And to top it all, they all know they are protected if the business fails.
The balance in football has swung too far in favour of the player ( employee ) and they are now pampered in a way that many fans find unacceptable. In the 1980's a typical weekly wage for a BHA player would be in the region of £400 per week. They could double that with win bonuses. That was worth busting a gut for. Now, how can you incentivise someone earning £5m a year basic salary!
Sadly, all in football have jumped aboard this roundabout spiralling ever faster and eating up ever more money. As long as there is vast income from TV and largesse from wealthy owners its going to continue. No-one has got the guts to take control of the situation and admit that it is out of hand and unrealistic. It is a scandal how much money is leaving the game and not being re-invested.
Ultimately, everyone, apart from the current players, will be the losers.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

I would just like two questions answered.

1. PB stated last July that the club was currently losing just above £8 Mill now he is stating that this season it is a loss of £12 Mill. What has been the cause of the £4 mill increase?

2. Last season when he stated we were losing over £8 mill he said this debt was unsustainable. How long is the £12 mill loss sustainable for?

3. Why were Reading allowed to sign Sir Glenn on loan and we were NOWHERE near that. WHY? In fact lets make it NUMBER ONE QUESTION.

 

[Bozza]

3. Why were Reading allowed to sign Sir Glenn on loan and we were NOWHERE near that. WHY? In fact lets make it NUMBER ONE QUESTION.

1. Where does it state we weren't interested or after Murray? I must have missed that briefing...

2. Let's play your game and pretend that the football side of the club, Hyypia and Burke, weren't after Murray. Are you suggesting Bloom and Barber should have got him anyway and made Hyypia play him?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I've heard it all now. Two supporters moaning that Paul Barber has the audacity to state a simple fact that we are competing with clubs who get massive parachute payments.

Are you guys for real? Or is your post just tongue-in-cheek, [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION], like your marvellous 1901 food threads?

Nope it was not tongue-in-cheek. Neither is it a moan. It's just an observation. My point is that I am not seeing a lot of benefit leveraged from parachute payments; and Barber has used parachute payments in two very different arguments. this is all. And I think my Buckley point is quite valid.

 

[Beach Hut]

Nope it was not tongue-in-cheek. Neither is it a moan. It's just an observation. My point is that I am not seeing a lot of benefit leveraged from parachute payments; and Barber has used parachute payments in two very different arguments. this is all. And I think my Buckley point is quite valid.

I think it was very good what you did as it clearly showed to me what absolute piss taking was going on charging eye watering prices for very little imagination let alone the taste unless the photos defied the odds.

Also a pint of Harveys in Shoreham is £3.15 so if I felt compelled to need to drink before the game and it is £4.10 at the Amex where might I drink ?

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

There is no other industry on earth that behaves like football.
It seems to make up its own business rules and carries on regardless of being profitable or not. In almost all other industries the primary consideration in running a successful business is keeping wage costs under control. At multi-national level, cost cutting usually involves a high level of redundancies. Lower down the spectrum there are wage freezes or increases in line with inflation. The aim of most businesses is to make a profit which can then be re-invested and help the business grow further.
There is little or no profit being made in football and most clubs are making a loss. A lot of clubs are technically insolvent. I can think of no other industry that pays out in excess of 50% of its total income ( rising to 75-80% in some instances ) on employees wages and agents fees. No normal business could sustain that. Closure would rapidly follow. Football survives on wealthy benefactors and vast TV income. It does not survive on financial prudence.
Football makes up its own rules on rewarding success. It is a results business and to be successful it has to sell itself to its supporters and sponsors. In almost every other business environment, employees are incentivised to achieve success through bonuses but football doesn't seem to care a jot about this. Forget bonuses, lets just pay someone £5m a year irrespective of how he does. He may not perform up to an acceptable standard for weeks or months. He may be on or off the treatment table for ages. He may not get on with the manager and effectively ' downs tools ' until the manager is forced out. The point is, they still get their vast wages irrespective of performance. How can that be right? No wonder some of them are happy sitting out game after game. Imagine being paid to do nothing. Its a no brainer. We'd all get some of that if we could. And to top it all, they all know they are protected if the business fails.
The balance in football has swung too far in favour of the player ( employee ) and they are now pampered in a way that many fans find unacceptable. In the 1980's a typical weekly wage for a BHA player would be in the region of £400 per week. They could double that with win bonuses. That was worth busting a gut for. Now, how can you incentivise someone earning £5m a year basic salary!
Sadly, all in football have jumped aboard this roundabout spiralling ever faster and eating up ever more money. As long as there is vast income from TV and largesse from wealthy owners its going to continue. No-one has got the guts to take control of the situation and admit that it is out of hand and unrealistic. It is a scandal how much money is leaving the game and not being re-invested.
Ultimately, everyone, apart from the current players, will be the losers.

Spot on. And the biggest problem of all? Agents.

 

[AZ Gull]

Nope it was not tongue-in-cheek. Neither is it a moan. It's just an observation. My point is that I am not seeing a lot of benefit leveraged from parachute payments; and Barber has used parachute payments in two very different arguments. this is all. And I think my Buckley point is quite valid.

What IS your Buckley point? (I read what you wrote, but I don't know what point you are making?)

And you ARE moaning - you said "To now suggest clubs benefit from such payments is a little disingenuous." Whether clubs use their parachute payments wisely is a completely different argument, but the fact is, clubs that get relegated from the Premier League get an increasingly massive payment (currently standing at 60 million over 4 years). How do you interpret that as anything other than a HUGE benefit, considering that our ENTIRE revenue from all sources in 2012-13 was 23million?

 

[Brighton Mod]

Absolutely not, unless you'd also say I was being critical if I said "Winning the FA Cup isn't easy." I would argue many clubs haven't got the balance quite right, but that's not to say I'd criticise their management. Everything is always a learning process, and the only way to learn is to fiddle and tune until you get everything working just how you want it. Looking at how close we've come over the last two seasons to promotion we've clearly nearly got it right, but haven't quite been there. That means you tweak the various factors a bit more, and we're currently seeing the results. Maybe we'll be promoted, maybe we won't - the only way to tell is to wait and see what happens.

Yes we will have to wait and see, I feel one of the critical factors is employing the manager that motivates, guides and directs the players, as yet I don't feel that we have selected the correct one. I am hoping that Sammi will recover from this indifferent start.

 

[Brighton Mod]

There is no other industry on earth that behaves like football.
It seems to make up its own business rules and carries on regardless of being profitable or not. In almost all other industries the primary consideration in running a successful business is keeping wage costs under control. At multi-national level, cost cutting usually involves a high level of redundancies. Lower down the spectrum there are wage freezes or increases in line with inflation. The aim of most businesses is to make a profit which can then be re-invested and help the business grow further.
There is little or no profit being made in football and most clubs are making a loss. A lot of clubs are technically insolvent. I can think of no other industry that pays out in excess of 50% of its total income ( rising to 75-80% in some instances ) on employees wages and agents fees. No normal business could sustain that. Closure would rapidly follow. Football survives on wealthy benefactors and vast TV income. It does not survive on financial prudence.
Football makes up its own rules on rewarding success. It is a results business and to be successful it has to sell itself to its supporters and sponsors. In almost every other business environment, employees are incentivised to achieve success through bonuses but football doesn't seem to care a jot about this. Forget bonuses, lets just pay someone £5m a year irrespective of how he does. He may not perform up to an acceptable standard for weeks or months. He may be on or off the treatment table for ages. He may not get on with the manager and effectively ' downs tools ' until the manager is forced out. The point is, they still get their vast wages irrespective of performance. How can that be right? No wonder some of them are happy sitting out game after game. Imagine being paid to do nothing. Its a no brainer. We'd all get some of that if we could. And to top it all, they all know they are protected if the business fails.
The balance in football has swung too far in favour of the player ( employee ) and they are now pampered in a way that many fans find unacceptable. In the 1980's a typical weekly wage for a BHA player would be in the region of £400 per week. They could double that with win bonuses. That was worth busting a gut for. Now, how can you incentivise someone earning £5m a year basic salary!
Sadly, all in football have jumped aboard this roundabout spiralling ever faster and eating up ever more money. As long as there is vast income from TV and largesse from wealthy owners its going to continue. No-one has got the guts to take control of the situation and admit that it is out of hand and unrealistic. It is a scandal how much money is leaving the game and not being re-invested.
Ultimately, everyone, apart from the current players, will be the losers.

So spot on, this can be extended to the pundits who pass comments and talk absolute nonsense!! The whole football circus is becoming ever rapidly disinteresting.

 

[Beach Hut]

So spot on, this can be extended to the pundits who pass comments and talk absolute nonsense!! The whole football circus is becoming ever rapidly disinteresting.

Ever rapidly ?

It is as football is now totally over-exposed in my view. Far too much on the telly and media

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What IS your Buckley point? (I read what you wrote, but I don't know what point you are making?)

And you ARE moaning - you said "To now suggest clubs benefit from such payments is a little disingenuous." Whether clubs use their parachute payments wisely is a completely different argument, but the fact is, clubs that get relegated from the Premier League get an increasingly massive payment (currently standing at 60 million over 4 years). How do you interpret that as anything other than a HUGE benefit, considering that our ENTIRE revenue from all sources in 2012-13 was 23million?

If my post isn't clear read some of the other posters alluding to a similar point about there being little evidence of parachute payments ultimately benefitting clubs.and it's not a case of spending the money wisely. In fact it's more the opposite ie lumbered with servicing huge legacy contracts for players who are not that great.