Question Budgets

[Silencer]

Following today's story in the Echo that we could not afford to take Paul Benson on loan for two months as we would have exceeded our budget I really am clueless as to how the budgets are set, can anyone help me?

I appreciate that the club would have it's own budget but if I am correct, it sounds as though it is the football league budget than we are close to exceeding.

I understand that the FL budget is something to do with a % of the club's turnover, so how is this worked, do they consider debt etc?

To me, it seems the likes of Swindon, Crawley etc spend a small fortune and are always signing new players despite them already boasting larger squads than us and also paying the top wages in this tier of the football league.

Personally, I feel that we are desperate for a striker and don't buy Paul Sturrock's spin that he did not wish to disrupt the winning squad by signing Yannick Boli and now Paul Benson. What manager would not want more of a selection.

Saturday's match (Despite dominating) was screaming out for a fresh attacking option, our only change was Anthony Grant. Ideally, you would want a different forward or creative playmaker/wideman to come in to the match.

Just confused, even more so that it looks as though Benson is no going to Swindon who will pay his wages in FULL.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Don't know how Crawley's manager or Swindon Town are doing it, but you've got to be very careful about such matters.

In 2003 a manager was suspended for 20 months for "contract irregularities" and in 1990 someone got relegated two divisions (reduced to one on appeal) in respect of illegal payments made to players.

 

[Cricko]

I can only assume Swindon and Creepy have massive budgets, as I believe it is a percentage of that you are allowed to spend on players wages.:unsure:

 

[Silencer]

It must be...for instance, if you have a chairman or backer with loads of money to invest, you have a bigger budget. This appears to be the case with Crawley and Swindon.

I just thought that I read somewhere that the wages budget set by the FL for league two club's had to be a percentage of the club's turnover. As such, outside investment would not be part of a club's turnover!!!

Pretty sure they are stretching the rules somewhere.

 

[Cricko]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Creepys chairman has put into place an amount to cover the players wages for the next 3 seasons....whether that is in their budget/accounts I have no idea.

 

[Reg Martin]

I think Swindon as a relegated team may have a higher % cap than other teams. They are also averaging about 25% higher gate than us so I can see why they would be able to have a bigger wage bill than us
Crawley is another matter and the only consolation is that they will eventually go wotsits up financially when as always happens their sugar daddy loses interest
I don't think Southend can have any complaints about the wages cap as it's probably been a major factor in keeping us in business. If there had been a similar cap in L1 between 2007 and 2010 we would not have suffered the painful financial corrections of 2009/10

 

[Firestorm]

I believe its done as a % age of turnover.

That said, Crawley will have had to seek some sort of dispensation as their last publish accounts were that of a part time team, As mentioned on here before, the concensus is that they have "lodged" funds to cover wages , in an escrow account, which can only be used for wages, this account was significant enough for them to be able to have a good sized wage budget,

There are also rumours about significant signing on fees being used to circumvent the wage cap .

But to have both of these in place, you basically have to have someone giving away free money, and its largely unsustainable, isn't it Rushden, Canvey etc etc ?

 

[TrueBlue]

Don't know how Crawley's manager or Swindon Town are doing it, but you've got to be very careful about such matters.

In 2003 a manager was suspended for 20 months for "contract irregularities" and in 1990 someone got relegated two divisions (reduced to one on appeal) in respect of illegal payments made to players.

Boston United?

 

[Firestorm]

It must be...for instance, if you have a chairman or backer with loads of money to invest, you have a bigger budget. This appears to be the case with Crawley and Swindon.

I just thought that I read somewhere that the wages budget set by the FL for league two club's had to be a percentage of the club's turnover. As such, outside investment would not be part of a club's turnover!!!

Pretty sure they are stretching the rules somewhere.

This is where the eufa fair play thing is being stretched.

For example
The Man City chairman can not pump his own money in to inflate the turnover numbers and thus prevent the club from making a loss.
However his contacts at Etihad mean that a stupidly high stadium sponsorship deal can be struck which is reflected in turnover. (this deal is currently being investigated).

As long as the Swindon / Crawley backers don't want their money back, they could be sponsoring all sorts of **** at silly prices to pump the cash in
unfortunately we are just being loaned our money

 

[Silencer]

Awesome response, thanks guys.

Basically then, it comes from outside investment and the rules are just stretched.

Think the Wage Cap/Uefa fair play idea's are overdue and desperately needed in football, but as in the cases of Crawley, Swindon and City mentioned above, clubs will always find a way to pump in extra funds.

Just a shame we couldn't receive a sponsorship for 2k a week for our burger bars to enable funds for a forward :winking:

 

[Blue_Wes]

Awesome response, thanks guys.

Basically then, it comes from outside investment and the rules are just stretched.

Think the Wage Cap/Uefa fair play idea's are overdue and desperately needed in football, but as in the cases of Crawley, Swindon and City mentioned above, clubs will always find a way to pump in extra funds.

Just a shame we couldn't receive a sponsorship for 2k a week for our burger bars to enable funds for a forward :winking:

Get Bucket&SpadeFC involved, I'm sure he'll be able to help with that!

I know we talked about it earlier, but I have a feeling that TB might have put on his own cap for SUFC's purposes. For example, as per the FA's cap, our wage budget is X, but TB because of our cashflow/debt issues has said actually I want PS to operate within 80% of the cap in order to make us more sustainable as a club. Just a guess mind.

 

[WESTY_SUFC]

Personally, I feel that we are desperate for a striker and don't buy Paul Sturrock's spin that he did not wish to disrupt the winning squad by signing Yannick Boli and now Paul Benson. What manager would not want more of a selection.

Saturday's match (Despite dominating) was screaming out for a fresh attacking option, our only change was Anthony Grant. Ideally, you would want a different forward or creative playmaker/wideman to come in to the match.

Just confused, even more so that it looks as though Benson is no going to Swindon who will pay his wages in FULL.

His waiting for Freddy to get fit so we can bring him home ;-)

 

[Thundersley Blue]

The cap for players wages is set at 60% of a Clubs turnover. Have taken info from a BBC report in June of this year.

 

[Silencer]

60%...that's what I mean, so with Crawley averaging 3000 fans, it's laughable how they have all this money.

Too many loopholes in the system.

Oh well, let them sign players at will, hopefully our tight knit squad can maintain this amazing start.

UTB

 

[Ron Manager]

I think these rules are great, long overdue and absolutely spot on.

This stops owners gambling with the club's future and heaping debt on it by spending money it can't afford. But it still allows for someone who chooses to directly invest decent sums to help a club rise through the divisions.