stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,635
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 24, 2017 23:45:44 GMT
Some may find this table interesting with regards to historic turnover, etc. footballeconomy.com/content/bristol-rovers-football-club-limitedThe latest accounts I could find were from March 2015 which suggested we had a turnover of around £3.55m. If we are allowed to spend 60% on players' wages, then that means we have around £2m to play with. Back of fag packet maths means that an average of £2k per week per player for a squad of 20 players would be about what we are allowed. Another thing which I wondered, and if anyone can confirm or correct, our accounts run from March to March. Does that mean by definition we are close to the end of our annual SCMP obligations which would explain why there may be little room for manoeuvre at the moment but from April onwards we are in a different accounting period and there would be scope for increases.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Jan 25, 2017 1:56:04 GMT
Some may find this table interesting with regards to historic turnover, etc. footballeconomy.com/content/bristol-rovers-football-club-limitedThe latest accounts I could find were from March 2015 which suggested we had a turnover of around £3.55m. If we are allowed to spend 60% on players' wages, then that means we have around £2m to play with. Back of fag packet maths means that an average of £2k per week per player for a squad of 20 players would be about what we are allowed. Another thing which I wondered, and if anyone can confirm or correct, our accounts run from March to March. Does that mean by definition we are close to the end of our annual SCMP obligations which would explain why there may be little room for manoeuvre at the moment but from April onwards we are in a different accounting period and there would be scope for increases. The accounts run up to 30th June, not March.
The AGM for 2017 is to be held in March for the financial year ending 30th June 2016 so that includes finances for our season in Championship 2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 6:52:59 GMT
Some may find this table interesting with regards to historic turnover, etc. footballeconomy.com/content/bristol-rovers-football-club-limitedThe latest accounts I could find were from March 2015 which suggested we had a turnover of around £3.55m. If we are allowed to spend 60% on players' wages, then that means we have around £2m to play with. Back of fag packet maths means that an average of £2k per week per player for a squad of 20 players would be about what we are allowed. Another thing which I wondered, and if anyone can confirm or correct, our accounts run from March to March. Does that mean by definition we are close to the end of our annual SCMP obligations which would explain why there may be little room for manoeuvre at the moment but from April onwards we are in a different accounting period and there would be scope for increases. Being allowed and being able are 2 different things. Do you think for a second there might be more columns on the spreadsheet than TURNOVER and PLAYER WAGES?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 25, 2017 8:34:10 GMT
With increased attendances plus the Chelsea game won't turnover by now well over £4m? Can you also really see the likes of Puddy, JC, OC or SS are on £100K p.a. probably only MT & CL + LL(?) get anywhere near that figure, with Boateng now at Northampton & Colkett at Swindle I doubt the loan players cost Rovers a fortune. It's a pity 1975 deleted his thread as he listed most of the players wages we could have used as a guide!
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,635
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 25, 2017 9:07:27 GMT
Some may find this table interesting with regards to historic turnover, etc. footballeconomy.com/content/bristol-rovers-football-club-limitedThe latest accounts I could find were from March 2015 which suggested we had a turnover of around £3.55m. If we are allowed to spend 60% on players' wages, then that means we have around £2m to play with. Back of fag packet maths means that an average of £2k per week per player for a squad of 20 players would be about what we are allowed. Another thing which I wondered, and if anyone can confirm or correct, our accounts run from March to March. Does that mean by definition we are close to the end of our annual SCMP obligations which would explain why there may be little room for manoeuvre at the moment but from April onwards we are in a different accounting period and there would be scope for increases. Being allowed and being able are 2 different things. Do you think for a second there might be more columns on the spreadsheet than TURNOVER and PLAYER WAGES? Completely agree, so yes, I'm conscious that this is only part of the picture.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,635
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 25, 2017 9:23:37 GMT
With increased attendances plus the Chelsea game won't turnover by now well over £4m? Can you also really see the likes of Puddy, JC, OC or SS are on £100K p.a. probably only MT & CL + LL(?) get anywhere near that figure, with Boateng now at Northampton & Colkett at Swindle I doubt the loan players cost Rovers a fortune. It's a pity 1975 deleted his thread as he listed most of the players wages we could have used as a guid Time lag in the accounts bearing in mind we run one season in arrears? And no, I don't think we are paying them that sort of wage, although players we are looking to recruit may be looking at that sort of salary. I don't recall who posted it but I recall one post a while ago showing the estimated average salaries per division, it was something like £40-£60,000 for L1. There is a lot of speculation here and it was merely an attempt to bring a bit of information to the debate. Using an average was to show how quickly or not we could use up our allowance. We also don't have 20 players, it was just an example. I really should have learnt by now, shouldn't I?
|
|
|
Post by Gas_Quarters on Jan 25, 2017 9:31:01 GMT
Some may find this table interesting with regards to historic turnover, etc. footballeconomy.com/content/bristol-rovers-football-club-limitedThe latest accounts I could find were from March 2015 which suggested we had a turnover of around £3.55m. If we are allowed to spend 60% on players' wages, then that means we have around £2m to play with. Back of fag packet maths means that an average of £2k per week per player for a squad of 20 players would be about what we are allowed. Another thing which I wondered, and if anyone can confirm or correct, our accounts run from March to March. Does that mean by definition we are close to the end of our annual SCMP obligations which would explain why there may be little room for manoeuvre at the moment but from April onwards we are in a different accounting period and there would be scope for increases. The FFP doesn't just work on a basis of actual figures. It works on a forecast of revenue and a forecast of expenditure as well. Therefore, I would imagine the financial year would be irrelevant and it would just be a continually rolling thing. UTG!
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,635
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 25, 2017 10:45:07 GMT
Some may find this table interesting with regards to historic turnover, etc. footballeconomy.com/content/bristol-rovers-football-club-limitedThe latest accounts I could find were from March 2015 which suggested we had a turnover of around £3.55m. If we are allowed to spend 60% on players' wages, then that means we have around £2m to play with. Back of fag packet maths means that an average of £2k per week per player for a squad of 20 players would be about what we are allowed. Another thing which I wondered, and if anyone can confirm or correct, our accounts run from March to March. Does that mean by definition we are close to the end of our annual SCMP obligations which would explain why there may be little room for manoeuvre at the moment but from April onwards we are in a different accounting period and there would be scope for increases. The FFP doesn't just work on a basis of actual figures. It works on a forecast of revenue and a forecast of expenditure as well. Therefore, I would imagine the financial year would be irrelevant and it would just be a continually rolling thing. UTG! I know, but as there are far too many unknowns and assumptions, I tried to keep it as simple as possible for illustrative purposes. Never mind, back to my day job ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 10:46:45 GMT
The FFP doesn't just work on a basis of actual figures. It works on a forecast of revenue and a forecast of expenditure as well. Therefore, I would imagine the financial year would be irrelevant and it would just be a continually rolling thing. UTG! I know, but as there are far too many unknowns and assumptions, I tried to keep it as simple as possible for illustrative purposes. Never mind, back to my day job ;-)Yeah, those burgers don't flip themselves.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,635
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 25, 2017 10:50:44 GMT
I know, but as there are far too many unknowns and assumptions, I tried to keep it as simple as possible for illustrative purposes. Never mind, back to my day job ;-)Yeah, those burgers don't flip themselves. It's what I aspire to, for today though I have to stick with preparing the salad.
|
|
|
Post by simon1883 on Jan 25, 2017 10:57:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Gas_Quarters on Jan 25, 2017 10:58:25 GMT
The FFP doesn't just work on a basis of actual figures. It works on a forecast of revenue and a forecast of expenditure as well. Therefore, I would imagine the financial year would be irrelevant and it would just be a continually rolling thing. UTG! I know, but as there are far too many unknowns and assumptions, I tried to keep it as simple as possible for illustrative purposes. Never mind, back to my day job ;-) I know. I wasn't trying to argue with you. Was just trying to point out my assumption that I don't think there will be a 'financial period' as such in FFP.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 25, 2017 11:13:08 GMT
The FFP doesn't just work on a basis of actual figures. It works on a forecast of revenue and a forecast of expenditure as well. Therefore, I would imagine the financial year would be irrelevant and it would just be a continually rolling thing. UTG! I know, but as there are far too many unknowns and assumptions, I tried to keep it as simple as possible for illustrative purposes. Never mind, back to my day job ;-) No worries but the problem is if you try and give examples that we are spending circa £2m on players wages the actual figures don't stack up if our contracted players are earning circa £50K-£75K p.a rather than the £100K p.a you used. As I say it's all a bit odd, I'm starting to wonder if Rovers are now playing the "look we skint" approach to try and get the UWE to agree a decent deal but if that's the case why proceed with the training ground purchase which sends the opposite message. I guess we'll find out one way or t'other by August, now was that the 1st or the 31st we need to mark in our diaries??
|
|