|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 19, 2017 12:01:14 GMT
I am really dreading the worst regarding the 2017 loss, with it being nearer 300 k than 200 k. Word reaches me that the proposed budget for next season is less than a quarter of last years spend. Which naturally begs the question, how much cash is actually left ?
Over to you Mr Hampson..................perhaps Geoff Berkeley could get an answer ?
|
|
|
Post by crosscountrymark on May 19, 2017 15:24:26 GMT
This is what you get when you allow the former manager a free hand to dwindle away the club funds on under achieving players on decent wages over the last four years and he was aware of the financial position. How has the club lost that much money with cheaper ground rent and the attendances have held up quite well considering the season we have had, it must be down to a unaffordable playing wage bill. Its going to be a tough season ahead with a playing budget of less than a quarter of last seasons and the players we are recruiting are local and want to play for the club, hopefully we pick up a decent squad from the trial games and a local scout working for the club.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 19, 2017 17:10:54 GMT
The weekly playing budget for this year is less than a quarter of last years weekly spend , as opposed to last year's weekly budget, which was over spent. I remember posting very early in the season about how many players were signed on, and how they were being paid for. On top of that, the signings of Micah Evans and a fee being paid for Connor Hughes who then got given an 18 month contract, made no sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by wcfcnb82 on May 19, 2017 17:58:14 GMT
The weekly playing budget for this year is less than a quarter of last years weekly spend , as opposed to last year's weekly budget, which was over spent. I remember posting very early in the season about how many players were signed on, and how they were being paid for. On top of that, the signings of Micah Evans and a fee being paid for Connor Hughes who then got given an 18 month contract, made no sense at all. Too true, and Heeley had no problem in deciding to spend a four figure fee on a player we didn't need. The board are that inept that they knew they couldn't afford it but heeley, knowing the finances, still demanded money to spend! Certainly the actions of a man who loved the club.
|
|
dcx
Squad Member
Posts: 289
|
Post by dcx on May 19, 2017 18:18:58 GMT
Sorry, are we seriously slagging of Carl Heeley and saying he has contributed to our voluntary demise?
Jesus Christ have a word with yourself. He had a budget, he spent it. He trusted the directors' judgement with regard to how much budget he had been allocated, his job was to sign players, not (ironically given his presentation at the EGM) produce cash flow forecasts.
I would be interested to know how exactly the (assumed) impending giant loss is made up, but I won't hold my breath for a detailed review of the P&L at the AGM. Actually I won't hold my breath for an AGM at all.
|
|
|
Post by zeke on May 19, 2017 18:57:28 GMT
Heeley demanded money? Really? You have proof?
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 19, 2017 20:55:00 GMT
" Demanded " isn't the correct word to use. " Asked " is probably a better word, and i gather that the Board were usually too afraid to say " No ". According to the 6 year summary ( in the absence of AGM's and full sets of accounts who knows if they are correct ? ) handed out by Hampson at the EGM of 2016, the wages and expenses were AT SGL 31.05.11 £ 201,474 31.05.12 £ 218,976 31.05.13 £ 229,579 AT AGGBOROUGH 31.05.14 £ 193,436 31.05.15 £ 275,660 ( Coventry/Scunthorpe season ) 31.05.16 £ 287,408 Estimated ( Sheff Utd season ) AT BROMSGROVE 31.05.17 £ ??
|
|
stamoo
First Teamer
Posts: 349
|
Post by stamoo on May 19, 2017 21:13:13 GMT
HA! SO now it's Carl's fault for asking for money to spend to try to keep us in the National League North? REALLY? The Board approve the budget and the Manager manages it!!!! That's how it works - you can hardly blame Carl for trying to do his job!
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on May 19, 2017 21:13:32 GMT
I don't understand how Carl can be blamed. He was an employee. He cannot just freely spend the money, he was allowed to. It's probably worth remembering that although he spent some money on Connor Hughes, which didn't work out - under Carl, we got money for Williams, Hutchison, Deeney, Nti and Geddes.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 19, 2017 21:23:00 GMT
I'm not blaming Carl at all. I'd ask for as much I could get off the Board as well. it's the Board's job to allow or say no to the spend, and that's been the problem.
As for transfer fees received, Hampson's summary sheets for the 6 year period state
31.05.15 £ 29,138 31.05.16 £ 1,000 ( estimated )
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Jun 12, 2017 9:56:31 GMT
Isn't the 2016 AGM supposed to be on Thursday 29th June ?
Anyone heard anything about it yet ?
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Jun 13, 2017 16:55:38 GMT
In answer to my own questions about the Club's finances, the lack of an AGM follows that time honoured tradition of financial silence and head burying. NO AGM = no questions.
Normally we have to wait 8 years ( 2008, 2016 ) for an EGM inspired financial revelation, but with funds as they are, we won't be getting anywhere near 2024 this time. Don't expect any re-arrangement soon !
|
|
kendin835
Youth Teamer
Lucky Squares Board J results 30-08-2021
Posts: 39
|
Post by kendin835 on Jun 13, 2017 23:03:26 GMT
Well there is a surprise........... I don't think!!
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Jun 15, 2017 21:03:15 GMT
JOINT managers John Snape and Lee Hughes have been given a “very competitive budget” by Worcester City’s board in a bid to challenge for promotion next season.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jun 15, 2017 21:16:51 GMT
We were told in February that the club would be "bringing forward a break even budget for next season." How that will be achieved has never been explained. I trust it is still the case, but it doesn't sit comfortably with the suggestion that we're the biggest spenders in the MFL.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Jun 15, 2017 22:28:39 GMT
Where has it been suggested "that we're the biggest spenders in the MFL"?
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Jun 15, 2017 22:42:15 GMT
jupu - Oddly enough for me, this is one financial statement from WCFC that I can almost believe !!!!!!
I understand that the playing budget in the MFL is less than a quarter of last season's in NN, which reflects the massive difference between level 2 and level 5 wages, and players expectations. I would certainly expect our playing budget to be in the top 3 or 4 in the Division.
The wages paid in NN last season were eye watering, and it is no wonder that the AGM ( where the current state of the finances would have had to be revealed by Hampson ) has been cancelled.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jun 15, 2017 23:22:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Jun 16, 2017 6:10:56 GMT
Haha so it is based upon clubs' managers claiming to know what City's budget is. Probably players playing a game of telling other clubs they have been offered "big money" to get a better deal for themselves
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jun 16, 2017 6:41:29 GMT
So Collicutt and Edwards don't know what they're talking about?
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Jun 16, 2017 7:17:33 GMT
Who knows, but If they have missed out on players they are bound to say City are paying more. Doesn't mean it is necessarily true.
|
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on Jun 16, 2017 7:49:01 GMT
What is the point of having a league winning budget when,I presume,we would turn down promotion on the basis that we couldn't afford to compete at the next level?I find the whole situation completely baffling.
|
|
|
Post by cloud on Jun 16, 2017 7:53:40 GMT
So Collicutt and Edwards don't know what they're talking about? They're just hearing things from players & putting their own opinion out there. May be right, may be wrong - nobody will ever know. Carl used to say that we were operating on a lower playing budget than most opponents, but in the bar before games the opposition fans always used to say that we must have a bigger playing budget then them to be able to afford Lee Hughes & Deon Burton. Nobody knows what a clubs playing budget is, except the club itself. Oxford - The Board wanted to play at the level above. They protested when they were (rightly) put in this league.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 16, 2017 8:30:26 GMT
The club weren't able to afford Lee Hughes, or Deon Burton, or indeed any other player last season. Carl was right, and he knew more about the playing budgets than opposition fans, or even our fans. It used to make me laugh when I saw people on here quoting that we were like the 3rd or 4th lowest wage budget, based probably on bar talk. Figures put out there for our wage budget were always laughably high!
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Jun 16, 2017 9:22:48 GMT
I would say teams like Rugby and Sporting will have better budgets than us....thats just guess work and by looking at players they have already signed.
Sporting for sure will have a good budget, decent crowds and they have our rent to show towards the budget !
We may well have one of the "higher" budgets but I would question if we would have the highest !
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Jun 16, 2017 9:56:27 GMT
Can people please stop and think and forget about concentrating on budgets, it's the actuals and what's paid out that count !!!!!! We can talk about budgets all we like, but sticking to it is the problem ! All we can say for certain, based on Hampson's 6 year summary ( if they are to be believed ) , are the actuals for wages and expenses - gross costs I assume 31.05.11 SGL £ 201,474 31.05.12 SGL £ 218,976 31.05.13 SGL £ 229,579 31.05.14 KID £ 193,436 31.05.15 KID £ 275,660 31.05.16 KID £ 287,408 ( this was an estimated figure, although Hampson estimated the loss for the year at 120k, when it turned out to be 155 k, so it's likely to be even higher, although we'll all find out at the next AGM............. ) 31.05.17 BRM £ 300,000 k Doing the maths, it's a 40 week season ( no pay for May, June, July ) so at £ 280k for a season it's £ 7,000 a week, at £ 300,000 it's £ 7,500 a week. It really is that simple. If you think back to last season and all the players that were signed on, many experienced, ( including some on 18 month contracts eg Connor Hughes ), I understand that when the realism hit in February ( new Finance guy took over who tells it straight ), the actual wages were over £ 8,000 a week, which when we had at least 20 players signed on, that's an average of £ 400 a week. Some would have been on more, some on less. This year in the MFL, I understand the budget to be £ 2,000 a week which is more than competitive for that level. Again some players will be on more than others but we're talking about most players getting £ 50 / £ 60 a week at this level. At this level and the level below players would only be getting £ 20 a week expenses if at all. So, yes, it is a " very competitive " budget for this level, and I have to say based on my sums, one that finally appears to be realistic based on the club's income. Collicutt and Edwards do know what they're talking about !
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Jun 16, 2017 9:57:44 GMT
Highest or lowest budget - just more money being chucked down the drain by idiots in a totally lost cause. WCFC RIP.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 16, 2017 10:33:25 GMT
Took the words out of my mouth alwaysnextyear. Budgets are fine, but are never adhered to! In the case of WCFC the overspend on wages has been high, which is one reason why we are where we are! But those figures are also way over
|
|
dcx
Squad Member
Posts: 289
|
Post by dcx on Jun 16, 2017 15:20:44 GMT
Can people please stop and think and forget about concentrating on budgets, it's the actuals and what's paid out that count !!!!!! We can talk about budgets all we like, but sticking to it is the problem ! All we can say for certain, based on Hampson's 6 year summary ( if they are to be believed ) , are the actuals for wages and expenses - gross costs I assume 31.05.11 SGL £ 201,474 31.05.12 SGL £ 218,976 31.05.13 SGL £ 229,579 31.05.14 KID £ 193,436 31.05.15 KID £ 275,660 31.05.16 KID £ 287,408 ( this was an estimated figure, although Hampson estimated the loss for the year at 120k, when it turned out to be 155 k, so it's likely to be even higher, although we'll all find out at the next AGM............. ) 31.05.17 BRM £ 300,000 k Doing the maths, it's a 40 week season ( no pay for May, June, July ) so at £ 280k for a season it's £ 7,000 a week, at £ 300,000 it's £ 7,500 a week. It really is that simple. If you think back to last season and all the players that were signed on, many experienced, ( including some on 18 month contracts eg Connor Hughes ), I understand that when the realism hit in February ( new Finance guy took over who tells it straight ), the actual wages were over £ 8,000 a week, which when we had at least 20 players signed on, that's an average of £ 400 a week. Some would have been on more, some on less. This year in the MFL, I understand the budget to be £ 2,000 a week which is more than competitive for that level. Again some players will be on more than others but we're talking about most players getting £ 50 / £ 60 a week at this level. At this level and the level below players would only be getting £ 20 a week expenses if at all. So, yes, it is a " very competitive " budget for this level, and I have to say based on my sums, one that finally appears to be realistic based on the club's income. Collicutt and Edwards do know what they're talking about ! Good post, well made, but unfortunately you're way off if you're expecting players to be on £50-60. www.herefordtimes.com/sport/15352775.Fields_out_gunned_by_big_money_clubs/£140 a week in the Midlands Prem! From a club who are supposed to be saving money! Works out at more than £2k a week for 16 players in the match day squad, I'm assuming no one is on contract, so if you don't play, you don't get paid.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Jun 16, 2017 15:40:15 GMT
As i said, some players will be on more than others. That's football life, and it depends who they are, It depends where they've come from, and what their reasons for joining are. Most of the players signed have been from a similar level club or lower, and it puts them in the shop window a bit more. For players stepping up from level 6, most of them will have been on £ 20 to £ 30 a week expenses, some maybe nothing. Doubling it to £ 50/£ 60 a week, at a bigger name club sounds pretty attractive to me.
What's wrong with say,
4 players/managers x £ 150 = £ 600 2 players x £ 100 = £ 200 15 players x £ 80 = £ 1,200
Total £ 2,000
Something similar wouldn't be too far off ?
|
|