snig
Academy Starlet
Posts: 101
|
Post by snig on May 1, 2014 19:46:25 GMT
Expect palaces to get high
Sent from my GT-I9300 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 19:47:51 GMT
I doubt if these figures produced by the Guardian can be certified facts.
Stokes gate receipts are second lowest behind Wigan. We are not second worst supported club (perhaps one of the cheapest on tickets I'll agree) but these figures pose more questions than answers.
I think the next set of accounts should show a much brighter picture.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on May 1, 2014 19:56:48 GMT
Expect palaces to get high Sent from my GT-I9300 using proboards Expect the Palace chairman to think that continued Premier League status is worth every penny.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 20:14:00 GMT
That 90% to turnover is a shocking rise. It was around a comfortable 75% not so long ago. Dreadful business sense for all involved, starting with the previous manager and ending (sadly) at the feet of the bean counters.
...and we wonder why our current manager is playing his game with his hands virtually tied behind his back.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on May 1, 2014 20:16:44 GMT
Our expenditure over the last five years was totally unsustainable.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 1, 2014 20:45:34 GMT
Based on these figures, only three teams had a lower turnover than Stoke i.e. QPR, Reading and Wigan, now all relegated.
If the Stoke Board were looking to get the figure down to say 75% of turnover, that would give a wage bill of £50m.
On the basis the target is to finish in the top ten, then it would either take a group of hugely talented younger players commanding lower wages, or remarkable skill of the manager in terms of tactics and motivation.
Unless I'm missing something here, then statistically Stoke will be one of the favourites for relegation and yet many of us are looking and hopeful for a top ten finish, is the expectation level again out of control or are the club about to find a way around these sobering economic realities.
|
|
|
Post by surreystokie on May 1, 2014 20:57:53 GMT
I'm amazed that there is surprise at our (poor) comparison with others, including Sunderland. Not noticed their crowds being 50% (!) up on ours, on average? Or announcements that they have some big sponsorships, where ours have always been historically poor. And I bet they sell a player every season for more than we've done, in total, in half a dozen seasons! They've even got their £6M pounds back for that daft bloke who almost immediately moved to Saudi for the same amount!
As I said in a recent thread, we have for too long bought high and sold low, the reason for our net transfers being third in the PL, only three seasons ago. It's inarguably the way to ruination and everyone should be concerned.
MH, of course, is the sucker who is paying the price, as is Lambert at Villa, after O'Neill's spending, as if there was no tomorrow. Not that I blame the Harrys, Tonys and Martins who are allowed such extravagence. That's why we're rightly putting the youth academy at the forefront of our plans and credit to those managers who are willing to go along that route.
A reminder, once more, that FFP will see us near our maximum for wages, in regard to income, and explains why we won't be spending all of the new Sky monies, from this season or for three more years (hopefullly!) on new players.
I've never understood why we have kept on those too many players - Soares, Tongue, etc - who were never going to play for us. No one would purchase them for what we wanted in order to cover their cost to us, or anwhere near, but we should have let them go much earlier, even at a loss, so as not to have no-hopers who could so easily become rotten apples, around the place. The sooner we put an end to long contracts for all but proven hig fliers, the better.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on May 1, 2014 21:30:09 GMT
or not buying 30 yr olds on peak salaries coming from other Premier league clubs.
just look at Southampton for what can be achieved
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie on May 1, 2014 21:35:15 GMT
12th highest wage bill and a 13th place finish in the table. The owners have said that they want the club to be self-sufficient. There are different ways of achieving that aim. Personally I'd go for a slightly smaller squad with the fringe players being better quality. IMHO......good call. That would at least get rid of the overly used phrase "deadwood"......who are these players within our 25 squad who are deadwood? Surely a highly competitive squad of about 18 would suit us better
|
|
|
Post by cmc89 on May 1, 2014 22:05:59 GMT
12th highest wage bill and a 13th place finish in the table. The owners have said that they want the club to be self-sufficient. There are different ways of achieving that aim. Personally I'd go for a slightly smaller squad with the fringe players being better quality. IMHO......good call. That would at least get rid of the overly used phrase "deadwood"......who are these players within our 25 squad who are deadwood? Surely a highly competitive squad of about 18 would suit us better Take a couple of injuries and we'll be lamenting how poor our bench looks mate. Thats the problem when we haven't got the youngsters who can make the step up (yet)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 22:10:46 GMT
IMHO......good call. That would at least get rid of the overly used phrase "deadwood"......who are these players within our 25 squad who are deadwood? Surely a highly competitive squad of about 18 would suit us better Take a couple of injuries and we'll be lamenting how poor our bench looks mate. Thats the problem when we haven't got the youngsters who can make the step up (yet) He's right I'm afraid. Until those younger players come to fruition (if ever) then the only answer in our circumstances is more quality than quantity. It's getting the right balance. Tony Pulis' biggest failure. One only has to look at Sidibe. He should have departed when we got promotion. There are many others that quickly spring to mind....
|
|
|
Post by prettything on May 1, 2014 22:25:39 GMT
or not buying 30 yr olds on peak salaries coming from other Premier league clubs. just look at Southampton for what can be achieved Southhampton spent about 25 million last summer
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on May 1, 2014 22:29:37 GMT
Where is all of Sunderland's extra income coming from? Are we missing a trick somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 22:44:13 GMT
Where is all of Sunderland's extra income coming from? Are we missing a trick somewhere? Could profits from player sales in the last few years be a factor?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 1, 2014 22:49:03 GMT
They've got 16 million for 3 bags of shit from some club, I can't think who.....
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 2, 2014 4:23:06 GMT
So we paid for 12th and got 12th for five seasons, what's the problem? I very nearly bit there, nice one
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 2, 2014 5:31:07 GMT
So we paid for 12th and got 12th for five seasons, what's the problem? I very nearly bit there, nice one You can't argue facts ely can you and of course at Stoke we are the only group of fans, nodding like obedient dogs, begging the owners to spend less money. Happily playing Portsmouth bingo. We're a unique breed we are.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 2, 2014 6:34:42 GMT
The biggest concern is the actual % of turnover being the third highest. And we were supposed to pay low wages so does that mean we just had too large a squad compared to other teams? Signing on fees (as opposed to transfer fees) are counted as wages, as they are subject to income tax. So they will be included in the wage bill and we may have paid a few big (one off) signing on fees in the year in question so that may account in part for the unreasonably large wage bill. But, you are right, we could not go on at those sort of levels. Signing on fees are spread over the length of the contract so don't think it would be that as the only player we signed on a one year deal was Owen wasn't it.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 2, 2014 6:40:15 GMT
I very nearly bit there, nice one You can't argue facts ely can you and of course at Stoke we are the only group of fans, nodding like obedient dogs, begging the owners to spend less money. Happily playing Portsmouth bingo. We're a unique breed we are. I remember Coates Mk I but if Coates Mk II continued as he was we'd have ended up in the same position as soon as he pops his clogs. My view is Bet365 are looking to float sometime in the next couple of years when that happens the tap is turned off and we'd be left with whatever pocket money denise gives her dad for additional funding.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on May 2, 2014 6:54:17 GMT
I thought we did everything on a shoestring and we were massively overachieving?
Propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on May 2, 2014 8:06:24 GMT
Leaving aside the past, the income figures we are able to generate are much less than clubs in more affluent areas. Fulham had a turnover about 6m higher than us, and their matchday receipts were 5m higher - with, if anything, a smaller ground and fanbase. It may not seem like it, but in effect the club has to 'carry' the fans simply because they fear high price sensitivity,compared to clubs with bigger fanbases and from wealthier areas. I support the freeze on ticket prices, and ours are probably still too high, but it does leave us less competitive to an extent. The rise in TV money as a percentage of turnover will reduce this effect, but not negate it completely. Perhaps our expectations of a top ten finish are unrealistic? And if we do it this season, but not next, can we really be surprised given that we are at best a middling sized club? I am assuming here that the debt is not increased and we spend in line with income. The area that might grow is TV money based on appearances - now that we are an attacking outfit Swansea got 5m more than us in 2012-13 and Fulham 3m more...surely we'll be on a few more times next year if we come 10th and continue our evolution?
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 2, 2014 8:22:46 GMT
The league position indicates Stoke are a medium sized PL club, but the turnover indicates they are a lower PL club.
The wage bill of clubs shows clearly the money is getting into the pockets of players and their agents, which in effect is being caused by the fans being prepared to spend thousands of pounds a year on admission prices, merchandise and television.
Southampton have been quoted as the example too follow, but last season people were saying the same about Swansea and W.B.A., and both sacked their managers.
The world football authorities could introduce a maximum wage which could level the playing field, but I doubt this will happen.
In the meantime, like the financial world and stock markets, people will be motivated by greed and stupidity, until such time as some clubs go broke.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on May 2, 2014 8:37:39 GMT
A word if caution not to equate turnover with profit levels. Turnover only measures the level of activity of a business, you can have massive turnover and be running at a loss or vice versa. A better table would be one based on profit/loss.
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on May 2, 2014 8:44:27 GMT
But turnover is a good indicator of profit potential. In our case I think the best we could do would be break even, given that our turnover is so shit.
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on May 2, 2014 8:44:49 GMT
A word if caution not to equate turnover with profit levels. Turnover only measures the level of activity of a business, you can have massive turnover and be running at a loss or vice versa. A better table would be one based on profit/loss. An even better table would be based on free cashflow. You can make profits and still not have enough cash/borrowing ability to pay your way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 8:52:05 GMT
Expect palaces to get high Sent from my GT-I9300 using proboards Expect any club's to get higher in their second season in the premier league, most of their players are going to want new contracts. Although Holloway signed so many players last season he had to leave new signings out of the 25 man squad. Or were you just looking to have a dig at their manager?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 8:56:29 GMT
The league position indicates Stoke are a medium sized PL club, but the turnover indicates they are a lower PL club. The wage bill of clubs shows clearly the money is getting into the pockets of players and their agents, which in effect is being caused by the fans being prepared to spend thousands of pounds a year on admission prices, merchandise and television. Southampton have been quoted as the example too follow, but last season people were saying the same about Swansea and W.B.A., and both sacked their managers. The world football authorities could introduce a maximum wage which could level the playing field, but I doubt this will happen. In the meantime, like the financial world and stock markets, people will be motivated by greed and stupidity, until such time as some clubs go broke. Southampton spent a lot last summer and owe something like £26m in unpaid transfer fees. I would expect their wage bill for this season will be a lot different. They could make money by selling players but can they replace them and where will they be next season? They are the example to follow in terms of their youth development but i'm not convinced they are such a well run club.
|
|
|
Post by smiler_andy on May 2, 2014 9:26:36 GMT
This was the season where we lost £30m. A number of people have left the club during and at the end of the 2012-13 season including Owen, Whitehead, Delap, Nash, Sidibe, Arismendi, Cuvelier, Higginbotham, Upson, Tonge. I believe the wage bill this season may be slightly down as a number of players have arrived a number of others have gone on loan with the hope that some of them have had part of their wages paid by other clubs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_Stoke_City_F.C._season
|
|
snig
Academy Starlet
Posts: 101
|
Post by snig on May 2, 2014 9:39:31 GMT
No not having a dig at pulis he made us what we are now but he spent and wasted a lot of money on the likes of palasios, crouch, tonge, knightly and a lot more
Sent from my GT-I9300 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on May 2, 2014 10:18:26 GMT
A word if caution not to equate turnover with profit levels. Turnover only measures the level of activity of a business, you can have massive turnover and be running at a loss or vice versa. A better table would be one based on profit/loss. An even better table would be based on free cashflow. You can make profits and still not have enough cash/borrowing ability to pay your way. Completely agree. Manure are in substantial debt but are able to service it.
|
|