|
Post by stokiejoe on May 2, 2014 10:26:10 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. Disagree unfortunately, turnover is a measure of activity If you are selling a thousand widgets at ten pounds each but they cost eleven pounds you lose a thousand pounds; if you sell a million your turnover dramatically increases but so does you loss. Happens all the time. We need to increase our income with the same costs or reduce our costs with the same income, or a combination of both. Either way an increase in our profit margin may be required unless we are content to break even.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 2, 2014 10:30:21 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'm afraid I can only answer your first point, you've completely lost me with the rest of it. We weren't twelfth in terms of percentage of turnover were we? We were right near the bottom, obviously the pizza boys fault 'cos they negotiated the contracts etc I'll wager next years figures are much better and we'll come much higher up in the turnover league, of course when that happens you'll be falling over yourself to give the credit to the pizza boys All this for a better league position playing very watchable football. It's inconcievable to think any other factors could have come into play...
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 2, 2014 10:38:22 GMT
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'm afraid I can only answer your first point, you've completely lost me with the rest of it. We weren't twelfth in terms of percentage of turnover were we? We were right near the bottom, obviously the pizza boys fault 'cos they negotiated the contracts etc I'll wager next years figures are much better and we'll come much higher up in the turnover league, of course when that happens you'll be falling over yourself to give the credit to the pizza boys All this for a better league position playing very watchable football. It's inconcievable to think any other factors could have come into play... No didn't get much of that myself..
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 2, 2014 10:39:31 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. If that's the case Norwich will have moved up significantly and Cardiff and Hull will have jumped into high spots won't they this season? I understand better now why Stoke haven't been splashing out the last 2 transfer windows and why TP had to leave. If Stoke had carried on the way they were going they could get into serious financial trouble. I also understand the number of signings of young players in the last 12 months, who could be a major source of revenue in the future. With Stoke in the Prem. top ten, playing more attractive football, and managing their finances better, I definitely feel a lot happier with them. Next step is to be a top ten scoring team, whilst keeping a good defence.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 2, 2014 10:39:36 GMT
I'm afraid I can only answer your first point, you've completely lost me with the rest of it. We weren't twelfth in terms of percentage of turnover were we? We were right near the bottom, obviously the pizza boys fault 'cos they negotiated the contracts etc ::) I'll wager next years figures are much better and we'll come much higher up in the turnover league, of course when that happens you'll be falling over yourself to give the credit to the pizza boys :) All this for a better league position playing very watchable football. It's inconcievable to think any other factors could have come into play... No didn't get much of that myself.. Perhaps we're both having a bad day.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 2, 2014 10:41:51 GMT
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. If that's the case Norwich will have moved up significantly and Cardiff and Hull will have jumped into high spots won't they this season? I understand better now why Stoke haven't been splashing out the last 2 transfer windows and why TP had to leave. If Stoke had carried on the way they were going they could get into serious financial trouble. I also understand the number of signings of young players in the last 12 months, who could be a major source of revenue in the future. With Stoke in the Prem. top ten, playing more attractive football, and managing their finances better, I definitely feel a lot happier with them. Next step is to be a top ten scoring team, whilst keeping a good defence. Couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on May 2, 2014 11:58:37 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. Disagree unfortunately, turnover is a measure of activity If you are selling a thousand widgets at ten pounds each but they cost eleven pounds you lose a thousand pounds; if you sell a million your turnover dramatically increases but so does you loss. Happens all the time. We need to increase our income with the same costs or reduce our costs with the same income, or a combination of both. Either way an increase in our profit margin may be required unless we are content to break even. I understand the difference, my point was that it's worth thinking about the income side and how we can maximise it. I think costs are already being reined in , but if we can generate more income that will help too, providing it's not following a Portsmouth model to do so, and we're not. Not now anyway. And widgets are clearly different to football seasons. If we have a good run in both cups, attract the cameras more often than we do now, fill the Brit every week, sell more pies and shirts, the marginal costs associated with those increases won't be much. Win bonuses, the 10p it costs us to get in an extra pie, or shirt perhaps Actually all of the debate about costs and income would be made less relevant if Peter and Denise just said here's 75m - write off the debt and spend the change on pushing forward...that's what we'd all do right?
|
|
UNKLE
Youth Player
Posts: 419
|
Post by UNKLE on May 2, 2014 12:17:34 GMT
Was it 53 million for the season before? And a graphic to warm Mr Scholes' (is that better Tone) heart...... Anyone see the link between the top four clubs?? ...no point, just saying!
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on May 2, 2014 12:35:38 GMT
Disagree unfortunately, turnover is a measure of activity If you are selling a thousand widgets at ten pounds each but they cost eleven pounds you lose a thousand pounds; if you sell a million your turnover dramatically increases but so does you loss. Happens all the time. We need to increase our income with the same costs or reduce our costs with the same income, or a combination of both. Either way an increase in our profit margin may be required unless we are content to break even. I understand the difference, my point was that it's worth thinking about the income side and how we can maximise it. I think costs are already being reined in , but if we can generate more income that will help too, providing it's not following a Portsmouth model to do so, and we're not. Not now anyway. And widgets are clearly different to football seasons. If we have a good run in both cups, attract the cameras more often than we do now, fill the Brit every week, sell more pies and shirts, the marginal costs associated with those increases won't be much. Win bonuses, the 10p it costs us to get in an extra pie, or shirt perhaps Actually all of the debate about costs and income would be made less relevant if Peter and Denise just said here's 75m - write off the debt and spend the change on pushing forward...that's what we'd all do right? Wife says I am eating too many pies. Yes agree with your comments, it is in their best interests to do as you suggest as it will repay many times over if we succeed. Anyway the pies have arrived!
|
|
|
Post by lordb on May 2, 2014 12:41:54 GMT
mmmm pies
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on May 2, 2014 12:56:39 GMT
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'm afraid I can only answer your first point, you've completely lost me with the rest of it. We weren't twelfth in terms of percentage of turnover were we? We were right near the bottom, obviously the pizza boys fault 'cos they negotiated the contracts etc I'll wager next years figures are much better and we'll come much higher up in the turnover league, of course when that happens you'll be falling over yourself to give the credit to the pizza boys All this for a better league position playing very watchable football. It's inconcievable to think any other factors could have come into play... I accept that our turnover will increase in the next financial year a result of the increase in TV share, but so will all the teams in The Prem, so how will we move higher up the "turnover league"?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 2, 2014 13:01:50 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. All clubs pay transfer fees over a number of years so nothing strange about Southampton look at the Stoke accounts there is £20m of trade creditors some if not the majority of that will be unpaid transfer fees
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 2, 2014 13:01:59 GMT
I'm afraid I can only answer your first point, you've completely lost me with the rest of it. We weren't twelfth in terms of percentage of turnover were we? We were right near the bottom, obviously the pizza boys fault 'cos they negotiated the contracts etc I'll wager next years figures are much better and we'll come much higher up in the turnover league, of course when that happens you'll be falling over yourself to give the credit to the pizza boys All this for a better league position playing very watchable football. It's inconcievable to think any other factors could have come into play... I accept that our turnover will increase in the next financial year a result of the increase in TV share, but so will all the teams in The Prem, so how will we move higher up the "turnover league"?
Never mind that, how about a bet?
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on May 2, 2014 13:11:53 GMT
Surely our turnover will be made up of TV money, gate receipts, sponsorship and other commercial activity. I can't see how we are going to dramatically improve that revenue in relation to other teams. Why are we suddenly going to start selling more than say, Villa, Newcastle or Sunderland?
Not really a gambling man, but out of interest, a bet on what?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 13:14:39 GMT
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. All clubs pay transfer fees over a number of years so nothing strange about Southampton look at the Stoke accounts there is £20m of trade creditors some if not the majority of that will be unpaid transfer fees Thats not the same though, this is money they owe not money they have agreed to pay over a number of years, or at least thats how it has been reported.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 2, 2014 13:21:51 GMT
Although this is a thread about wages and turnover, it amazes me why people see this information and are not more annoyed about the rip off that is modern day football.
Wages in football are a gigantic bubble, paid for by the fans, time to put the fans first for a change.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 2, 2014 13:30:00 GMT
All clubs pay transfer fees over a number of years so nothing strange about Southampton look at the Stoke accounts there is £20m of trade creditors some if not the majority of that will be unpaid transfer fees Thats not the same though, this is money they owe not money they have agreed to pay over a number of years, or at least thats how it has been reported. Well that's because the standard of reporting is so piss poor if you look in their accounts some is shown as due within 1 year some as due in more than 1 year and they actually break out transfer fees payable Stoke don't, they also only have loans of about £18m from their directors.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 2, 2014 13:30:56 GMT
Although this is a thread about wages and turnover, it amazes me why people see this information and are not more annoyed about the rip off that is modern day football. Wages in football are a gigantic bubble, paid for by the fans, time to put the fans first for a change. the wages aren't paid for by fans anymore though are they it's by sky money
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 2, 2014 13:34:19 GMT
Who pays Sky?
|
|
|
Post by Staying up for Grandadstokey on May 2, 2014 14:25:38 GMT
It illustrates how well Southampton have done , they are the stand out exception .
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 2, 2014 14:33:32 GMT
The massive increase in players wages suits the big clubs, because it puts a bigger gap between them and the rest.
A substantial reduction in wages would be of huge benefit to clubs like Stoke, but none of the football authorities or media want that to happen.
The hierarchy in the game want the league dominated by the big fashionable clubs, and so maximum wage regulations, which are used in the USA in some sports, are unlikely to see the light of day.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 2, 2014 14:45:08 GMT
When I say Sky, I mean TV money, the overseas deals were bigger than the UK deals last time, if you don't pay the wages you don't get the top players and these foreign "fans" will move onto the next league or team in the blink of an eye
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 2, 2014 14:58:43 GMT
If you look at any league in the world they are , and have been for a few years, dominated by between 3/5 clubs.
This position will continue indefinitely unless regulations are introduced, on a worldwide basis, to control wages.
If fans are happy to support a team, that can never finish in the top four of a major league, then that's up to them, but I am saying wage control is long overdue.
Surely football would be significantly better if clubs like Stoke, Derby, Wolves, Burnley, Notts. Forest, Villa, Blackburn and so on, could finish at the very top, or near to it, of the top division, as of course they have in the past.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on May 2, 2014 15:02:12 GMT
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'm afraid I can only answer your first point, you've completely lost me with the rest of it. We weren't twelfth in terms of percentage of turnover were we? We were right near the bottom, obviously the pizza boys fault 'cos they negotiated the contracts etc I'll wager next years figures are much better and we'll come much higher up in the turnover league, of course when that happens you'll be falling over yourself to give the credit to the pizza boys All this for a better league position playing very watchable football. It's inconcievable to think any other factors could have come into play... But percentage of turnover is meaningless as a measure of performance. As the post you replied to makes clear, all the nonsense about transfer fees under Pulis is irrelevant, all the studies consistently show absolute level of wages not share of turnover drives league position. We paid for lower mid table and consistently achieved it. Unlikely we could do much better regularly given the size if our club and finances
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on May 2, 2014 15:03:29 GMT
It illustrates how well Southampton have done , they are the stand out exception . Not necessarily need to see their numbers for this season as last year their wages to position were in line
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 2, 2014 15:49:30 GMT
The people responsible for contracts and wages are still here. True. But happily no one can go over their heads anymore. Denise has seen to that.
|
|
|
Post by furny88 on May 2, 2014 16:12:51 GMT
yes the tv money will help but i think we should be doing a little better on the commercial side. for a premier league team we've got some really average sponsors like q-railing and britannia. i know its really hard for clubs like stoke with out a famous name or international links but we should at least be operating at a national level of sponsorship. bet 365 is pretty much the only deal stoke have that most people will have heard of. this just seems wrong to me. just hope the new warrior kit deal is worth some money and we can start to get some larger sponsors interested now the brand of football has changed and hopefully we get top ten finish.
|
|
|
Post by cmc89 on May 2, 2014 16:23:59 GMT
Wouldn't surprise me to find we get american sponsors coming in over the next few years. We seem to be relatively popular over there compared to other mid-table teams
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 2, 2014 16:28:20 GMT
So we paid for 12th and got 12th for five seasons, what's the problem? No real problem apart from we have been told by some fucking geniuses on here that we are in the bottom four of wage payers. Which is quite clearly bollocks. Mind you it was the same people telling us we'd only spent about 40 mill not 100. H
|
|
|
Post by furny88 on May 2, 2014 16:29:13 GMT
Wouldn't surprise me to find we get american sponsors coming in over the next few years. We seem to be relatively popular over there compared to other mid-table teams hope so really think that is an area we can improve in. i wonder if we could do some sort of deal with an american sports team in the NFL or NBA?
|
|