Summer transfer window 2021.

[arbitro]

Wages and salaries up by £3.2m from 2019 to 2020?

Is that the whole business or just the playing side? If the former it's even more questionable as most of the non playing staff were on furlough.

[Sparks Rover]

2 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

Thanks @J*B

So we're basically spunking millions on salaries for no tangible benefit.

£480,000 per week in wages.🤷‍♂️🥺

WTF!

[J*B]

11 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

Thanks @J*B

So we're basically spunking millions on salaries for no tangible benefit.

In FFP year 3 we are yes. Next set of accounts will be much lower. 

[lraC]

Totally crazy and once again, highlights that we will never succeed, under this ownership. 

[jim mk2]

Wages are high presumably because the playing staff last season was so large - the players let go since the end of last season should see that figure reduce significantly. What it doesn't show is average player wages or the highest earners - do Rovers pay significantly more than other clubs?

Swansea and Barnsley showing how it should be done - among the lowest wages to turnover yet both reached the play-offs. Well managed clubs. 

[Cherry Blue]

Looking at those figures posted by @J*B we may be paying too much in wages but the comparison is against a £3.2m fall in turnover. 

 

Venkys should be asking why both Leeds & Brentford get a return for less directors remuneration and what about the player write-off of over £6m in two years?? Is that just unlucky, bad accounting or poor management? 

Edited July 24, 2021 by Cherry Blue

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, Sparks Rover said:

£480,000 per week in wages.🤷‍♂️🥺

WTF!

Something weird about this. That would mean a 24-man squad, for example, earning an average of 20k per week each. Which I have had the impression is roughly the maximum anyone is on.

I understand that we probably had a 25-man squad, without looking it up, and that the wages figure probably includes all staff at the club - including youth players -but in relative terms they're on peanuts, probably only accounting for another couple of players to adjust the average by. Presumably some of our first team squad are only on a few k too.

It must be including bonuses too, but damn. Even with all that included it seems high.

Edited July 24, 2021 by bluebruce

[Sparks Rover]

11 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Something weird about this. That would mean a 24-man squad, for example, earning an average of 20k per week each. Which I have had the impression is roughly the maximum anyone is on.

I understand that we probably had a 25-man squad, without looking it up, and that the wages figure probably includes all staff at the club - including youth players -but in relative terms they're on peanuts, probably only accounting for another couple of players to adjust the average by. Presumably some of our first team squad are only on a few k too.

It must be including bonuses too, but damn. Even with all that included it seems high.

I wonder if agent fees are included in that.

[OldEwoodBlue]

How much is Pasha on ?

[RoverCanada]

PNE is certainly an interesting comparison (/criticism of our relative performance), but worth keeping in mind the above too... cut wages with caution (Wigan, Hull, and Charlton were the relegated sides for the chart above).

We're probably maxing out what we can do on the wages side (and the evidence suggests wages are usually the best first-order determinator of success...), but that's still just below average in the Championship (and well below the top squads)

Re: Barnsley, note these are the numbers from when Barnsley was a point away from relegation. Fair play to them on an exceptional year, and there's good reason to believe their management is a big reason behind that, but I'm hesitant to declare them the new model to follow after one year... but certainly a team to keep an eye on next year.

The Brentford model obviously has the longest and most successful track record among the low revenue clubs. For us, following that exactly would mean dropping the Academy entirely, so one for debate... Interesting that Brentford barely used the loan market in recent years. I don't mind a few key loans, and there are other examples of sides using the loan market effectively to get up, but it's clear that Brentford prioritised developing their own assets first (and with significant sales to show for it!), helped by some very shrewd incomings.

Edited July 24, 2021 by RoverCanada

[phili]

2 hours ago, J*B said:

In FFP year 3 we are yes. Next set of accounts will be much lower. 

Next set of accounts will be much bigger, these are only up to June 2020, next set is up to June 2021.

You can pretty much do these, commercial revenue will be down as will matchday income so i would say £3.5-4m knocked of our Turnover, so expect Turnover to be £9.5m.

Then wages will be up by another £3-3.5m. We didn't lose many players last season but added significantly in Douglas, Ayala, Kaminski etc. So a wages to turnover ratio of around 320-350% maybe slightly more.

You have to remember that, this includes all player wages (players, coaches, youth players etc) plus pension and national insurance contributions etc. Our highest paid player i believe is on around £15-17k per week and will be Dack. 

 

[Sparks Rover]

25 minutes ago, RoverCanada said:

 Interesting that Brentford barely used the loan market in recent years. I don't mind a few key loans, and there are other examples of sides using the loan market effectively to get up, but it's clear that Brentford prioritised developing their own assets 

You are spot on there    

[phili]

25 minutes ago, RoverCanada said:

PNE is certainly an interesting comparison (/criticism of our relative performance), but worth keeping in mind the above too... cut wages with caution (Wigan, Hull, and Charlton were the relegated sides for the chart above).

We're probably maxing out what we can do on the wages side (and the evidence suggests wages are usually the best first-order determinator of success...), but that's still just below average in the Championship (and well below the top squads)

Re: Barnsley, note these are the numbers from when Barnsley was a point away from relegation. Fair play to them on an exceptional year, and there's good reason to believe their management is a big reason behind that, but I'm hesitant to declare them the new model to follow after one year... but certainly a team to keep an eye on next year.

The Brentford model obviously has the longest and most successful track record among the low revenue clubs. For us, following that exactly would mean dropping the Academy entirely, so one for debate... Interesting that Brentford barely used the loan market in recent years. I don't mind a few key loans, and there are other examples of sides using the loan market effectively to get up, but it's clear that Brentford prioritised developing their own assets first (and with significant sales to show for it!), helped by some very shrewd incomings.

Barnsley's owner owns 4 other clubs and has implemented the same model at all of these, so i would say it is tried and tested approach.

Regarding Brentford they chose to put money into getting castoffs instead of putting £20m into building a Cat A academy. Once an academy is built it is cost neutral as you receive a grant from the FA covering the player costs.

[roversfan99]

The subs bench named for a game 2 weeks before the start of the season is frightening. The starting 11 contains 3 or 4 who are yet to establish themselves also.

Mowbray needing to isolate will presumably ensure that it is difficult to get anyone in before Swansea, with a nice excuse to go with it.

[bluebruce]

On 24/07/2021 at 14:08, phili said:

Barnsley's owner owns 4 other clubs and has implemented the same model at all of these, so i would say it is tried and tested approach.

Regarding Brentford they chose to put money into getting castoffs instead of putting £20m into building a Cat A academy. Once an academy is built it is cost neutral as you receive a grant from the FA covering the player costs.

Fairly sure the grant only covers part of the player costs. The reason it's cost neutral in a sense is because academy costs don't contribute to FFP considerations.

[roversfan99]

Stefan Johansen currently being unveiled to the QPR fans.

[JHRover]

We should be blessed with owners willing and able to tip in such amounts each year

It should make us the envy of other clubs in this division.

It should see us armed with a strong squad of assets.

It should see Ewood immaculate.

It shouldn't see us slashing the squad back, relying on unproven kids, risking our Championship status.

Yet it does. It isn't good management and it is awful value for money.

They seem happy or comfortable with it. The trouble is that the club crumbles and stagnates whilst this goes on and how it ends up is a big worry.

[Fraserkirky]

So by all accounts we had a huge wage bill last year and the end of a three year FFP cycle. If that was going for it, then we failed miserably. Surely some accountability and a fresh start for a new leader??

[tomphil]

On 24/07/2021 at 15:09, JHRover said:

We should be blessed with owners willing and able to tip in such amounts each year

It should make us the envy of other clubs in this division.

It should see us armed with a strong squad of assets.

It should see Ewood immaculate.

It shouldn't see us slashing the squad back, relying on unproven kids, risking our Championship status.

Yet it does. It isn't good management and it is awful value for money.

They seem happy or comfortable with it. The trouble is that the club crumbles and stagnates whilst this goes on and how it ends up is a big worry.

After so long in this division apart from 1 trip to league 1 which in some ways reset things, then yes there should be a lot more to show for their tens of millions.

The only bright thing is the academy which bucks all other venky trends. If that was run by some of the dweebs we've had in the managers chair and upper office briefly then that would be fecked as well. In fact the present lot would probably kybosh it first chance they got if they got one.

Whoever has stood firm on it under this ownership needs a medal.

[RevidgeBlue]

On 24/07/2021 at 14:48, bluebruce said:

Fairly sure the grant only covers part of the player costs. The reason it's cost neutral in a sense is because academy costs don't contribute to FFP considerations.

From memory the Academy costs about £3.2m p.a. to run and that is offset by a grant of £1.9 m so £1.3m net or roughly the same as Ayala's wages.

The Academy really is the least of our problems. It should be seen as our one shining beacon of hope.

Edit: tomphil beat me to it.

Edited July 24, 2021 by RevidgeBlue

[Sparks Rover]

On 24/07/2021 at 15:52, RevidgeBlue said:

From memory the Academy costs about £3.2m p.a. to run and that is offset by a grant of £1.9 m so £1.3m net or roughly the same as Ayala's wages.

The Academy really is the least of our problems. It should be seen as our one shining beacon of hope.

Edit: tomphil beat me to it.

The academy has to pay for itself.  I mean when did we last sell someone for good money who came through and I mean came through from 16 or younger...Jones?  We've produced a lot of shyte, but grade A Academy needs to produce grade A players.

We are a bottom half championship club and I'm not sure many of our mates in this part of the league are spending 3.2m on an academy that doesn't really produce anything....the land is the only value.

Edited July 24, 2021 by Sparks Rover

[tomphil]

Only having to contribute 1.5 mill per season to something like that is an absolute bargain. 

It doesn't have to find a 10 million pound player every couple of years although that would be nice. The dynamics of it have changed now, it has to produce lads good enough to fill our Championship squad. Anything else is a bonus when the odd real gem comes along.

Take into account the wages as well when they graduate into the first team.  They aren't all on 10k pwk like Joe Average 26 year old journeyman wants.

It's so vital to us now.

[bluebruce]

On 24/07/2021 at 15:58, Sparks Rover said:

The academy has to pay for itself.  I mean when did we last sell someone for good money who came through and I mean came through from 16 or younger...Jones?  We've produced a lot of shyte, but grade A Academy needs to produce grade A players.

We are a bottom half championship club and I'm not sure many of our mates in this part of the league are spending 3.2m on an academy that doesn't really produce anything....the land is the only value.

Of course it produces something. The Raya sale will have sorted a couple of years of the costs (after the grant is considered) but more importantly we have a bunch of players in our first team from it. No superstars, but this saves us transfer fees and academy players usually come through on lower wages. Then there's, again, the fact its exempt from FFP calculations and it's very clear the academy is worth keeping.

[Mike E]

On 24/07/2021 at 15:58, Sparks Rover said:

The academy has to pay for itself.  I mean when did we last sell someone for good money who came through and I mean came through from 16 or younger...Jones?  We've produced a lot of shyte, but grade A Academy needs to produce grade A players.

We are a bottom half championship club and I'm not sure many of our mates in this part of the league are spending 3.2m on an academy that doesn't really produce anything....the land is the only value.

In Venkys' tenure we've sold from our academy:

Alex Marrow - 248k

Phil Jones - 17.37m

Frank Fielding - 315k

Hoilett - 3.38m (tribunal?)

Olsson - 2.61m (signed age 16 for 45k, so I'm including)

Hanley - 5.94m

Raya - 3.02m

=32,883,000m

Not including any undisclosed (Judge, Doran, O'Connell, O'Sullivan etc)

3.2m-1.9m grant = 1.3m, or 14.1m at most since Venkys turned up.

32,883,000-17,370,000= 15,463,000

Even without accounting for Jones, the academy has at least broken even. That many academy players are in/around the first team shows the value of a Cat A academy at this level, giving us a wonderful safety net in the face of awful misspending by successive managements at Rovers.

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

On 24/07/2021 at 17:16, Mike E said:

In Venkys' tenure we've sold from our academy:

Alex Marrow - 248k

Phil Jones - 17.37m

Frank Fielding - 315k

Hoilett - 3.38m (tribunal?)

Olsson - 2.61m (signed age 16 for 45k, so I'm including)

Hanley - 5.94m

Raya - 3.02m

=32,883,000m

Not including any undisclosed (Judge, Doran, O'Connell, O'Sullivan etc)

3.2m-1.9m grant = 1.3m, or 14.1m at most since Venkys turned up.

32,883,000-17,370,000= 15,463,000

Even without accounting for Jones, the academy has at least broken even. That many academy players are in/around the first team shows the value of a Cat A academy at this level, giving us a wonderful safety net in the face of awful misspending by successive managements at Rovers.

 

How did we get £ 248,000 for Alex Marrow ? He made Lowe look like Franz Beckenbauer.