Not good enough

Anything yellow and blue
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotIsaac&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
Isaac, you are casting aspersions ont he FL's ability to enforce their own rules. I think you need to show why you believe this, without recourse to unsubstantiated rhetoric.

The old &quotsome way to get around the rules&quot argument is always wheeled out by those who don't like the natural conclusion to the argument, that Oxford United are not a God like team unable to do no wrong. It never ceases to amaze me that people can't simply accept that everyone has played by the rules and Oxford United, and Wilder in particular, has underperformed compared to others?

You're wrong on the wage cap. My understanding is that it is based on current year turnover.

Investment in a football club does not affect turnover or the wage cap.
I'm casting aspersions because I cannot find (after a quick google search) any evidence on the web about what the FL are going about the wage cap, or what you say of their policing of it is correct.

If you can provide some, please do, as it will provide some clarification for me and others as at the moment there is a lot of unsubstatiated rhetoric and it's not all mine.
Not quite sure why you think I should do your Google searching for you. Either accept what I say or don't, it's no skin off my nose. But anyway, here's a couple of links for you:

From the Football League's website

http&#58//www&#46football-league&#46co& ... 34_2410453

http&#58//www&#46football-league&#46co& ... 31_2432068

http&#58//www&#46football-league&#46co& ... 34_2374252

I imagine that still won't be enough for you and you might like me, your personal PA, to arrange a one on one for you with the Chairman of the Football League!! :roll:
Kernow Yellow
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:16 pm

Re:

Post by Kernow Yellow »

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:It is no use saying that there is a rumour of Crawley spending more than they should and basing an entire argument on it. As we've already discussed, Crawley sold their best player for a lot of money in order to stay within the FL rules. Evans has picked up a lot of very good players for next to nothing and hence they stay within the rules. That just makes Evans better at signing players than Wilder (as if we didn't already know this and how much would we wish to have retained Bulman?). Their budget is less than ours but they've used it better.
Just want to pick up on one thing here, GY. You say that Crawley have a smaller wage budget than ours (as evidenced by attendances), yet you then say that they sold a player for a lot of money to stay within the rules. If the near £1m they have just received can be counted as turnover for the sake of wages, then it makes a significant difference to their budget, doesn't it? And it therefore means that budget is not simply dictated by attendances, as you argue, doesn't it?

You also say that Evans has picked up a lot of good players for next to nothing, which may or may not be true (I have no idea), but surely it could be possible that he/Crawley paid good money as transfer fees for a lot of them, but that their wages do not fall outside their budget (ie they *have* spent a lot of money on players, but not necessarily on wages). It would be interesting to know whether signing-on fees count towards wage budget, as if not that's a pretty easy way of getting round the rules a bit for new players, at least.
Isaac
Dashing young thing
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 9:32 am

Post by Isaac »

GY - I found them, I was hoping for something more in depth, but I'm guessing they probably don't exist for public consumption. Which is a bit disappointing. I think the wage cap begs more questions than it answers unfortunately.

KY/GY - Crawley also sold Tubbs for 800k in January, they then also needed to sell Barnett for £1m to stay within the wage cap? The mind boggles :shock:
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotKernow Yellow&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:It is no use saying that there is a rumour of Crawley spending more than they should and basing an entire argument on it. As we've already discussed, Crawley sold their best player for a lot of money in order to stay within the FL rules. Evans has picked up a lot of very good players for next to nothing and hence they stay within the rules. That just makes Evans better at signing players than Wilder (as if we didn't already know this and how much would we wish to have retained Bulman?). Their budget is less than ours but they've used it better.
Just want to pick up on one thing here, GY. You say that Crawley have a smaller wage budget than ours (as evidenced by attendances), yet you then say that they sold a player for a lot of money to stay within the rules. If the near £1m they have just received can be counted as turnover for the sake of wages, then it makes a significant difference to their budget, doesn't it? And it therefore means that budget is not simply dictated by attendances, as you argue, doesn't it?

You also say that Evans has picked up a lot of good players for next to nothing, which may or may not be true (I have no idea), but surely it could be possible that he/Crawley paid good money as transfer fees for a lot of them, but that their wages do not fall outside their budget (ie they *have* spent a lot of money on players, but not necessarily on wages). It would be interesting to know whether signing-on fees count towards wage budget, as if not that's a pretty easy way of getting round the rules a bit for new players, at least.
Indeed, and I think I've said that several times. Even so, Crawley would still have needed a shed load more as any money for sales they could only use 55% of, and that is even if player sales are allowed in the formula.

Possibly Isaac has identified that above in them also selling Barnett for £1m, but again that may well be outside the formula rules.

As I said on another thread some time ago, the Crawley Chairwoman was on Radio 5 Live telling Crawley fans to turn up or they would have to sell their best players.

It is very possible that simply losing those players off the wage bill brings their remaining costs for the season as a whole into line with their smaller budget.

To my knowledge there are no other clubs with significant player sales from League 2 which would materially affect their budget.

The question I am intrigued by is whether Crawley can maintain their league place having sold their 2 best players. I see that they lost last night. Could be good news for OUFC.
Last edited by GodalmingYellow on Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotIsaac&quot wrote:GY - I found them, I was hoping for something more in depth, but I'm guessing they probably don't exist for public consumption. Which is a bit disappointing. I think the wage cap begs more questions than it answers unfortunately.

KY/GY - Crawley also sold Tubbs for 800k in January, they then also needed to sell Barnett for £1m to stay within the wage cap? The mind boggles :shock:
I think the answers are all there. It is just a case of whether people wish to accept them or not. The wage cap is 55% of turnover. Investment cannot be included as turnover. Transfer embargo and points deduction to anyone who doesn't comply.

I wasn't aware of the Barnett sale as well, which I would think puts to bed the case of Crawley's inaccurately alleged (by some) circumventing of the rules, though whether that was rectified by income form the player slaes or by the reduction in players wages, or both, it is difficult to tell.
Last edited by GodalmingYellow on Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dartford Ox
Puberty
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:46 pm
Location: Welling

Post by Dartford Ox »

It has been mentioned twice on this thread that our last match is at Port Vale.

Rumour has it that they are going into Administration tomorrow. Does that mean an 'easy and there for the taking' game for us to finish with? That scares me.

Worse still - they may not exist at all.

Losing 3 pts already gained against them would be bad enough.

Having Peter Leven's wonder goal stricken from the records would be sacrilege.
Isaac
Dashing young thing
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 9:32 am

Re:

Post by Isaac »

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote: I wasn't aware of the Barnett sale as well, which I would think puts to bed the case of Crawley's inaccurately alleged (by some) circumventing of the rules.
It also suggests that just using their attendance to guess their wage budget isn't very accurate. If it was they wouldn't need to add £1.8m to their turnover (which I bet is more than they make in ticket sales throughout the season), plus removing 2 presumably high earners, to just move back within the 55% rule.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotDartford Ox&quot wrote:It has been mentioned twice on this thread that our last match is at Port Vale.

Rumour has it that they are going into Administration tomorrow. Does that mean an 'easy and there for the taking' game for us to finish with? That scares me.

Worse still - they may not exist at all.

Losing 3 pts already gained against them would be bad enough.

Having Peter Leven's wonder goal stricken from the records would be sacrilege.
Port Vale have the lowest gates to capacity ration in the League at just 25.3%. It's no wonder they face administration. You would think their celebrity fan would ensure that they do not go bust. but again this could play into OUFC hands, as if they go into admin, they will get a 10 point penalty.
slappy
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:52 pm

Post by slappy »

To add a bit of extra detail, this is what the league sent to me back in June last year.
------------------------------------------------------
SCMP has operated in League Two since 2003/04 and is based partially on projected turnover and reassessed at stages throughout the season. Clubs in League Two will work to a 55% SCMP turnover based on gate income, central distributions and commercial revenue. They are however allowed to utilise (and discount from the 55% SCMP) what is termed as ‘football fortune income’ which is such things as net transfers, donations, equity cash injections and cup match prize monies.
------------------------------------------------------
Which clarifies that net transfer, donations and equity cash injections can be used.

Anyway, multiplying average gates by average ticket prices and taking 55% doesn't necessarily mean that the manager is given the maximum SCMP budget to spend. Other overheads (such as rent) may well mean that the Chairman imposes a lower playing budget.
Isaac
Dashing young thing
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 9:32 am

Post by Isaac »

I'm not using this to excuse Wilders performance either, or bash Crawley. I'm just curious - for instance there's lots of rumours that half of Leven's wages are paid for by someone/thing other than the club. How does that fit into the wage cap calculations? These checks the FL do, are they in depth or back of a beer mat? Turnover isn't consistent across a season, how do they adjust for seasonal differences?
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotslappy&quot wrote:To add a bit of extra detail, this is what the league sent to me back in June last year.
------------------------------------------------------
SCMP has operated in League Two since 2003/04 and is based partially on projected turnover and reassessed at stages throughout the season. Clubs in League Two will work to a 55% SCMP turnover based on gate income, central distributions and commercial revenue. They are however allowed to utilise (and discount from the 55% SCMP) what is termed as ‘football fortune income’ which is such things as net transfers, donations, equity cash injections and cup match prize monies.
------------------------------------------------------
Which clarifies that net transfer, donations and equity cash injections can be used.

Anyway, multiplying average gates by average ticket prices and taking 55% doesn't necessarily mean that the manager is given the maximum SCMP budget to spend. Other overheads (such as rent) may well mean that the Chairman imposes a lower playing budget.
There is no reason to believe that their reply should not be regarded as accurate.

We were pretty sure on donations already.

Not many investors will put money into a club for equity unless they hold a controlling share and have a definitive exit strategy. The vast vast majority of &quotinvestment&quot in football clubs is by secured loans.

You are right that it is within the Chairman/woman's option to allow only a restricted budget of less than the 55% of turnover. I would bet there is not a single club in the division which does so though. In referring to rent, are you alluding to OUFC, or being more general?
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotIsaac&quot wrote:I'm not using this to excuse Wilders performance either, or bash Crawley. I'm just curious - for instance there's lots of rumours that half of Leven's wages are paid for by someone/thing other than the club. How does that fit into the wage cap calculations? These checks the FL do, are they in depth or back of a beer mat? Turnover isn't consistent across a season, how do they adjust for seasonal differences?
Seasonal differences? Do you mean gate variations during the season? If so, as Slappy has highlighted, clubs are re-assessed through the season and it is up to the club's to maintain control of their spending.

I've never heard the Leven rumour. Care to expand for us nosey types?
Isaac
Dashing young thing
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 9:32 am

Post by Isaac »

I say lots of rumours, but I randomly sat in the South stand upper at one of the early games of the season (Rovers, I think) and the bloke next to me claimed Bridle paid Leven's signing on fee, plus a percentage of his wage (apparently half) above and beyond the sponsorship money they already pay. I saw something similar on the yellowsforum too. Obviously just hearsay and as likely to not be true as to be true, but it begs the question as to how easy/difficult this would be to do (say Bridle gave us 100k for sponsorship, instead of spending 55% of this on wages, we could spend all of it using this sort of arrangement).
theox
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1162
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Broncos

Re:

Post by theox »

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quotslappy&quot wrote:To add a bit of extra detail, this is what the league sent to me back in June last year.
------------------------------------------------------
SCMP has operated in League Two since 2003/04 and is based partially on projected turnover and reassessed at stages throughout the season. Clubs in League Two will work to a 55% SCMP turnover based on gate income, central distributions and commercial revenue. They are however allowed to utilise (and discount from the 55% SCMP) what is termed as ‘football fortune income’ which is such things as net transfers, donations, equity cash injections and cup match prize monies.
------------------------------------------------------
Which clarifies that net transfer, donations and equity cash injections can be used.

Anyway, multiplying average gates by average ticket prices and taking 55% doesn't necessarily mean that the manager is given the maximum SCMP budget to spend. Other overheads (such as rent) may well mean that the Chairman imposes a lower playing budget.
There is no reason to believe that their reply should not be regarded as accurate.

We were pretty sure on donations already.

Not many investors will put money into a club for equity unless they hold a controlling share and have a definitive exit strategy. The vast vast majority of &quotinvestment&quot in football clubs is by secured loans.

You are right that it is within the Chairman/woman's option to allow only a restricted budget of less than the 55% of turnover. I would bet there is not a single club in the division which does so though. In referring to rent, are you alluding to OUFC, or being more general?
I'm confused!

So the basic calculation that our budget must be 2nd/3rd highest due to the size of our gates might not be right then as Crawley/Shrewsbury/Cheltenham/whoever might be gaetting donations or investment which can all increase the wage budget?
joepoolman
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:22 am

Re:

Post by joepoolman »

&quotJoeyBeauchamp&quot wrote:I think, rather than going round in circles, this boils down to two things, which I don't think many would disagree with

1. We should be up there challenging for the play-offs, given our resources, fan base and ambition.
2. While CW has made a number of curious or wrong decisions, such as loan signings, tactics and player management, he is the best manager we have had for some time and to get rid of him at the business end of a season when we are threatening the play-offs would be absolute madness.

My own personal view is that stability and patience are rare qualities in football, and - unless we lose every game of the rest of the season and finish near the bottom - I hope CW is manager next season whether we go up or not.
I'd second that, especially the last bit.
Post Reply