League 1 General Chat Thread

[masi51]

Our wage bill has been confirmed at 45% of our revenue - not sure how anyone expects us to compete at that level!

I had to rub my eyes twice when i read what you had put so i Googled it your wage bill [players only] is over 8.5m
This does not include Gayle and is only your top 15 earners
Your highest player is Hourihane 12k a week lowest is Wilson 5k a week
Big, big gamble on you getting promoted. Only see more financial problems with Derby in the near future.
If you go up you had better hope a wealthy investment group are eyeing you up

 

[leedsvaliant]

I had to rub my eyes twice when i read what you had put so i Googled it your wage bill [players only] is over 8.5m
This does not include Gayle and is only your top 15 earners
Your highest player is Hourihane 12k a week lowest is Wilson 5k a week
Big, big gamble on you getting promoted. Only see more financial problems with Derby in the near future.
If you go up you had better hope a wealthy investment group are eyeing you up

It's the usual dance isn't it with these sorts of teams? Gamble with more money than they have, get promoted, try and spend even more in the division above, miss out and eventually get relegated and run into financial trouble, nearly go bust and then rescued and the cycle starts again.

I've said it before. Until each team has a set budget for players, teams will continually try and cheat. It's not about who has the best coaches and managers anymore, it's about who has the most money. Utterly pointless in competitive sport. If you put clubs in order of wage bill (barring the odd anomaly), you wouldn't be a million miles off league places. It's not a sport anymore, it's who has the biggest bank balance.

Teams that have 30k fans through the gate have been able to build that support and relative success over 100+ years. Meanwhile others who would like to aspire to grow their crowds over many years and have sustained periods of success have got no chance. It's the same teams swapping in and out of the top 2 divisions every year. It's boring.

 

[Bartonyellow]

It's the usual dance isn't it with these sorts of teams? Gamble with more money than they have, get promoted, try and spend even more in the division above, miss out and eventually get relegated and run into financial trouble, nearly go bust and then rescued and the cycle starts again.

I've said it before. Until each team has a set budget for players, teams will continually try and cheat. It's not about who has the best coaches and managers anymore, it's about who has the most money. Utterly pointless in competitive sport. If you put clubs in order of wage bill (barring the odd anomaly), you wouldn't be a million miles off league places. It's not a sport anymore, it's who has the biggest bank balance.

Teams that have 30k fans through the gate have been able to build that support and relative success over 100+ years. Meanwhile others who would like to aspire to grow their crowds over many years and have sustained periods of success have got no chance. It's the same teams swapping in and out of the top 2 divisions every year. It's boring.

Which is why non league football is flourishing- the pyramid is healthy. Although the same formula will always exist. Money talks and the bigger teams climb up quicker

 

[leedsvaliant]

Which is why non league football is flourishing- the pyramid is healthy. Although the same formula will always exist. Money talks and the bigger teams climb up quicker

I agree, money talks. But money shouldn't be the driver for success. It should be down to the skill of the manager and coaches, the scouting network, the spirit of the team and club. Now, each team might as well submit their balance sheet in July and save us all the hassle and money.

 

[valefan16]

Money in football is ridiculous as a whole and has made it far less competitive, its the huge gulf between top of average thats the big problem, the days of teams like Port Vale, Grimsby, Swindon, Cambridge, Crewe, Walsall being Championship regulars like the 1990's and often very competitive despite being up against sides like Leicester, Derby, Forest, WBA, Wolves are long long gone which is a shame. the only way now for it to happen if the average sized clubs spend massively which risks long term damage.

12k a week for playing in L1 is bonkers.

 

[AmberRich]

It's the usual dance isn't it with these sorts of teams? Gamble with more money than they have, get promoted, try and spend even more in the division above, miss out and eventually get relegated and run into financial trouble, nearly go bust and then rescued and the cycle starts again.

I've said it before. Until each team has a set budget for players, teams will continually try and cheat. It's not about who has the best coaches and managers anymore, it's about who has the most money. Utterly pointless in competitive sport. If you put clubs in order of wage bill (barring the odd anomaly), you wouldn't be a million miles off league places. It's not a sport anymore, it's who has the biggest bank balance.

Teams that have 30k fans through the gate have been able to build that support and relative success over 100+ years. Meanwhile others who would like to aspire to grow their crowds over many years and have sustained periods of success have got no chance. It's the same teams swapping in and out of the top 2 divisions every year. It's boring.

If it goes tits up they'll be all sorts of crying and pleas of mercy and understanding.

I don't want any club to disappear but if you are repeatedly irresponsible and even breaking rules to the point you gain an unfair advantage and get promoted or stay up over clubs who are trying to keep within their means then there should be a hefty punishment.

Reading are a prime example of a club who getting a way with it lightly. Teams should get a points deduction based on the amount of points the accrued from their irresponsible spending or cheating. If Derby have been spending irresponsibly and end up in similar position again then there needs to be repercussions. If they don't its clubs like Cambridge, Port Vale, Cheltenham, Exeter who might get relegated instead or Portsmouth and Bolton who are denied promotion that are truly punished for doing absolutely nothing wrong and acting within their means.

Combine that with better overall financial controls in the EFL, and ownership checks, and it might become a fairer league system.

 

[BRFC_Gas]

Just look at Bournemouth, they didnt get to the Prem on their crowds alone and never would have.
I remember chucking some coins into their collection buckets when they were struggling to stay afloat, now they are spending 26M on players
Then there the likes of Fleetwood benefitting from ill-gotten gains

 

[GEORGE]

Which is why non league football is flourishing- the pyramid is healthy. Although the same formula will always exist. Money talks and the bigger teams climb up quicker

I'm not sure Hamworthy United, East Thurrock United , Marske United, Nuneaton Borough or Taunton Town will agree with your statement.

 

[91SPP]

I had to rub my eyes twice when i read what you had put so i Googled it your wage bill [players only] is over 8.5m
This does not include Gayle and is only your top 15 earners
Your highest player is Hourihane 12k a week lowest is Wilson 5k a week
Big, big gamble on you getting promoted. Only see more financial problems with Derby in the near future.
If you go up you had better hope a wealthy investment group are eyeing you up

It’s great how companies house doesn’t have any of our accounts since 2018 but a site on Google is locked in on exact numbers, apparently.

The comment on wages in terms of revenue was made by our CEO in an interview on Tuesday. I’m not sure how you can say we are in a financial mess when our wage bill is 45% of our revenue, reiterating that we are run sustainably. The last published accounts by Bolton had it at 73% as wage/turnover.

 

[GEORGE]

I'm not sure Hamworthy United, East Thurrock United , Marske United, Nuneaton Borough or Taunton Town will agree with your statement.

Can also add Rochdale & Torquay United .

 

[leedsvaliant]

It’s great how companies house doesn’t have any of our accounts since 2018 but a site on Google is locked in on exact numbers, apparently.

The comment on wages in terms of revenue was made by our CEO in an interview on Tuesday. I’m not sure how you can say we are in a financial mess when our wage bill is 45% of our revenue, reiterating that we are run sustainably. The last published accounts by Bolton had it at 73% as wage/turnover.

It is a bit galling though that you were virtually going out of business the summer before last and now you're bringing in Dwight Gayle as 'backup' on god knows what a week. Feels like you've just said 'whoops, sorry we spent so much money that we didn't have, we won't do it again '. Whatever you say about sustainability, as soon as you go back up to the Championship you'll do the exact same thing.

Bournemouth is a good example actually. I remember playing them in the early 90s, they brought about 100 fans and were completely on their arse. They can fit about 10k in their ground and so they haven't generated their wealth through turnover. They've quite literally paid to be at the top table. Whatever anyone tries to argue, that's not sport anymore. Until we stop clubs giving 12k a week to bang average 3rd division footballers, the game has gone.

It'll never happen because greed has taken over, but I think it would be brilliant if every team across the leagues had the same wage budget limit. Then we'd see who was the best at the sport, rather than success by bank balance.

 

[Throbber_for_Dunk]

You only get so much negotiation room when you're bent over the barrel, and grateful just to have the barrel.

I think deep down a fair few of us would liked to have seen if the whole super league bollocks either killed everyone for good or gave the sport back to us.

 

[91SPP]

It is a bit galling though that you were virtually going out of business the summer before last and now you're bringing in Dwight Gayle as 'backup' on god knows what a week. Feels like you've just said 'whoops, sorry we spent so much money that we didn't have, we won't do it again '. Whatever you say about sustainability, as soon as you go back up to the Championship you'll do the exact same thing.

Bournemouth is a good example actually. I remember playing them in the early 90s, they brought about 100 fans and were completely on their arse. They can fit about 10k in their ground and so they haven't generated their wealth through turnover. They've quite literally paid to be at the top table. Whatever anyone tries to argue, that's not sport anymore. Until we stop clubs giving 12k a week to bang average 3rd division footballers, the game has gone.

It'll never happen because greed has taken over, but I think it would be brilliant if every team across the leagues had the same wage budget limit. Then we'd see who was the best at the sport, rather than success by bank balance.

This makes no sense: 'you will do the exact same thing' is a nonsense theory based on absolutely nothing other than the voices in your own head. Dwight Gayle was released by one of the worst Championship clubs in the league, reportedly paid up, had no Championship interest and only had offers from other League One sides? How can you possibly gauge what we're paying him - the only thing you can derive on the above is that it's a League One wage. No doubt he will be well compensated, but he's been brought in because all four of our other strikers are injured.

Mel Morris and David Clowes are very different people, the clubs are run poles apart. As mentioned, our wage bill is 45% of the turnover as confirmed by our CEO and agreed as part of our business plan. How many teams in this league are running a wage bill that low in terms of turnover? We can do it at this level happily because 45% of turnover works out roughly £10m - there's only one or two other teams that make that much revenue as a whole. Championship is a different ball game all together - in order to be competitive over a sustained period of time, realistically you need to compete financially with other clubs - it would take three times that amount and I'm not sure we are built for it so I don't stress myself over it.

You say it would be great for every team to have the same wage budget limit. I agree, but how would you impose that - would Derby have to function on a wage bill sustainable for Port Vale or would Port Vale have the opportunity to spend the same as Derby, i.e. unsustainable for as club of it's size? You have to make it work commercially.

Same goes in the Premier League, would Man Utd with their £640m revenue stream be capped at £30m wages to allow Luton to be financially competitive or would the Premier League allow Luton to spend up to the levels of City/United at £350m per annum? If you can come up with a workable, commercial solution then feel free to address it to the Premier League & EFL because as far as I can see there simply is very few options that allow for a financial level playing field and a sustainable business model.

Finances in football, especially in this country, is incredibly complex. All clubs are run as limited business, no different to your local Plumbing and Heating companies, which is the core root of the problem. They are community assets and should be governed completely differently, but that horse has long bolted.

The NFL have it right, but unworkable in football. A closed shop Premier League, maybe, but it would be neigh on impossible to convince the owner of an established club across the globe with huge revenues to share profits with a Luton, Sheff Utd, etc. I think football in this country, certainly in this day and age, is anti-competition. The same six names are rammed down our kids' throats and the landscape of the game will be based purely on those clubs going forward - the rest of us are just pointless noise in the background, like a 5pm undercard bout on a boxing event when the main event doesn't start until 11pm.

 

[denzel ecfc]

Jarred his leg when running, no other players involved. Was sadly one of those accidents which happens.

Oh, sounds like the injury Kyle Taylor had. He was out for 18 months...

 

[masi51]

It’s great how companies house doesn’t have any of our accounts since 2018 but a site on Google is locked in on exact numbers, apparently.

The comment on wages in terms of revenue was made by our CEO in an interview on Tuesday. I’m not sure how you can say we are in a financial mess when our wage bill is 45% of our revenue, reiterating that we are run sustainably. The last published accounts by Bolton had it at 73% as wage/turnover.

You are sort of contradicting yourself and i never said you was in a financial mess, i said you are gambling big to get up the pyramid and if that gamble does not work you COULD be in a mess

This makes no sense: 'you will do the exact same thing' is a nonsense theory based on absolutely nothing other than the voices in your own head. Dwight Gayle was released by one of the worst Championship clubs in the league, reportedly paid up, had no Championship interest and only had offers from other League One sides? How can you possibly gauge what we're paying him - the only thing you can derive on the above is that it's a League One wage. No doubt he will be well compensated, but he's been brought in because all four of our other strikers are injured.

Mel Morris and David Clowes are very different people, the clubs are run poles apart. As mentioned, our wage bill is 45% of the turnover as confirmed by our CEO and agreed as part of our business plan. How many teams in this league are running a wage bill that low in terms of turnover? We can do it at this level happily because 45% of turnover works out roughly £10m - there's only one or two other teams that make that much revenue as a whole. Championship is a different ball game all together - in order to be competitive over a sustained period of time, realistically you need to compete financially with other clubs - it would take three times that amount and I'm not sure we are built for it so I don't stress myself over it.

You say it would be great for every team to have the same wage budget limit. I agree, but how would you impose that - would Derby have to function on a wage bill sustainable for Port Vale or would Port Vale have the opportunity to spend the same as Derby, i.e. unsustainable for as club of it's size? You have to make it work commercially.

Same goes in the Premier League, would Man Utd with their £640m revenue stream be capped at £30m wages to allow Luton to be financially competitive or would the Premier League allow Luton to spend up to the levels of City/United at £350m per annum? If you can come up with a workable, commercial solution then feel free to address it to the Premier League & EFL because as far as I can see there simply is very few options that allow for a financial level playing field and a sustainable business model.

Finances in football, especially in this country, is incredibly complex. All clubs are run as limited business, no different to your local Plumbing and Heating companies, which is the core root of the problem. They are community assets and should be governed completely differently, but that horse has long bolted.

The NFL have it right, but unworkable in football. A closed shop Premier League, maybe, but it would be neigh on impossible to convince the owner of an established club across the globe with huge revenues to share profits with a Luton, Sheff Utd, etc. I think football in this country, certainly in this day and age, is anti-competition. The same six names are rammed down our kids' throats and the landscape of the game will be based purely on those clubs going forward - the rest of us are just pointless noise in the background, like a 5pm undercard bout on a boxing event when the main event doesn't start until 11pm.

Great post that and as i learned how to count both with my fingers and a abacas, i do not have the speil or the mathematics degrees some of these accountants have, but like anything in life those who are intelligent are as thick as pig shit in everyday life.
I honestly dont know if 10m equates to 45% of your turnover [are you charging £80 a ticket] What i have also seen are these figures and a reported loss of 6.8m in the 9 months exiting administration.
So they are saying all players wages are paid and your turnover give you another 10m to play with yet you lost north of 6m in 9 months................Does it cost 17m to run your club for 9 months excluding wages.


As i say i am not clued up with figures but i cannot understand those

 

[Luke Imp]

We've become only the third Club in the English system to introduce a Golden Share (Brentford and Stevenage the other two), which means that anything to do with kit colours, badges, club name, stand re-naming (specifically the Stacey West Stand), stadium move etc have to be put to a vote via the Supporters Trust before anything can be changed, if at all.

The current Board have sought out the thoughts of supporters on issues and put them to a vote when required anyway so it doesn't change too much in that respect, it just puts it in a more legal way.

 

[Throbber_for_Dunk]

Fairly sure we have that too, even if it doesn't have as much veto power. They definitely said it was the plan when the shadow board was set up.

Either way, good on Lincoln, assuming Jez doesn't just go rogue anyway,

 

[BRFC_Gas]

Our grounds are pretty shit though who would want their name on any of the stands. Some of our fans were on about naming our new South Stand after a 'legend' - what a smack in the face that would have been

 

[AmberRich]

Fairly sure we have that too, even if it doesn't have as much veto power. They definitely said it was the plan when the shadow board was set up.

Either way, good on Lincoln, assuming Jez doesn't just go rogue anyway,

Pretty sure we've only got a "golden share" when it involves the ground. Hence why the club can force through their changes to the club badge, despite negative reaction from supporters feedback and polls.

 

[91SPP]

You are sort of contradicting yourself and i never said you was in a financial mess, i said you are gambling big to get up the pyramid and if that gamble does not work you COULD be in a mess

Great post that and as i learned how to count both with my fingers and a abacas, i do not have the speil or the mathematics degrees some of these accountants have, but like anything in life those who are intelligent are as thick as pig shit in everyday life.
I honestly dont know if 10m equates to 45% of your turnover [are you charging £80 a ticket] What i have also seen are these figures and a reported loss of 6.8m in the 9 months exiting administration.
So they are saying all players wages are paid and your turnover give you another 10m to play with yet you lost north of 6m in 9 months................Does it cost 17m to run your club for 9 months excluding wages.


As i say i am not clued up with figures but i cannot understand those

There was a number of post-administration payments that needed to be cleared hence the loss, i.e. paid Arsenal up to date Bielik and Jozwiak which I'd imagine were key - you're looking at over £6m between those two alone regardless of anything else - deferred wages that also needed bringing up to date, etc.

The turnover for the 9 months was £16.5m and the wages were restricted for the season to £8m, although the latter was an unsubstantiated report.

Anyway - this is the latest: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68254190

 

[valefan16]

Pretty sure we've only got a "golden share" when it involves the ground. Hence why the club can force through their changes to the club badge, despite negative reaction from supporters feedback and polls.

Some clubs have the ground as an "asset of community value" thus can only be used for Football essentially which is what Vale Park is currently.

 

[coronakopite]

Fairly sure we have that too, even if it doesn't have as much veto power. They definitely said it was the plan when the shadow board was set up.

Either way, good on Lincoln, assuming Jez doesn't just go rogue anyway,

Pretty sure we've only got a "golden share" when it involves the ground. Hence why the club can force through their changes to the club badge, despite negative reaction from supporters feedback and polls.

Although it was promised, a year ago when we bought back the ground and in October when the Shadow Board was set up, I am pretty sure the Golden Share has not yet been formally put in place.

Not a worry, it's a process that is underway. I also expect it to cover the standard issues recommended in the National Fan Led Review just like the Lincoln example, not just the ground.

 

[Luke Imp]

Our grounds are pretty shit though who would want their name on any of the stands. Some of our fans were on about naming our new South Stand after a 'legend' - what a smack in the face that would have been

Our stand one is only in there because the Stacey West Stand is named after the two Lincoln fans who died in the Bradford Fire so it's not something that's ever changed (to my knowledge anyway).

 

[K-Win]

I believe we have a Heritage Share, which means fans have a veto on club colours, name and stadium location. So technically the club badge could be changed without approval (and maybe stadium name? - it's not clear to me)

 

[valefan16]

Big News today, a rumour was posted on OVF the other day which seemed unbelievable that Carol was about to come into mega money that would transform the club...

Shes just sold her company for £180 Million... lets hope the club benefits but explains some comments by people close on social media in recent weeks to hold of judging.

Also probably explains how we managed to get Darren Moore in.

 

[Dan Phillips]

Which makes the fact we've relegated ourselves with not recruiting properly in January, even more fucking infuriating, as clearly we're not short of cash.

 

[Luke Imp]

Well, that's assuming one or a combination of she or her family owning 100% of the shares, whether it's cash and/or stocks transaction and if she actually wants to throw even more than the Club (hasn't she already thrown £10m+ in in her short tenure?).

 

[Luke Imp]

Reading getting another points deduction - 2 points.

 

[AmberRich]

Reading getting another points deduction - 2 points.

Should be more tbh.

 

[valefan16]

Well, that's assuming one or a combination of she or her family owning 100% of the shares, whether it's cash and/or stocks transaction and if she actually wants to throw even more than the Club (hasn't she already thrown £10m+ in in her short tenure?).

They owners own 95% i believe (they founded it).

The guy who dropped the rumour last week about a big windfall also claimed she was going to focus fully and "go all in" on Port Vale now... hopefully the second part is correct, lets be honest even 10-20 million would transform the club.

It probably explains how we come to end up with Darren Moore out the blue and his enthusiasm despite the dire current situation, how the Campus is going to be able to happen as that will surely need millions to do it (not sure if you went Saturday but the whole green area behind the away end, plus center where away coaches park, through to Vale Park and the College the other side to become a sports campus).

Plus despite falling short we know Smith from Sheff Wed's was at Vale Park late on deadline day until they didn't get their target over the line. That would surely have cost us.

I would imagine she will want a legacy, her emotional speech Saturday shows she cares but I don't expect us to be smashing big money signings etc but to get back to League One and finally be stable and competitive would do me joking aside!