Conference Level
-
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re:
Not quite right Boris. Increases in turnover, result in an increase in wage cap of 25% of that increase in turnover. So the formula for everyone with turnover of more than £1m is £350,000 || 25% of turnover. Therefore an increase of £100,000 turnover results in an increase of £25,000 in the wage cap."boris" wrote:My understanding is that we get a £300,000 parachute payment for dropping out the league (reduced next season to £20,000 if we don't go back up). In addition we have that £50,000 that was won in the Boycott Coca Cola competition.
It's unclear (at least to me) from those rules what benefits accrue from increasing the club's turnover, so how much it benefits the club to take possession of the stadium in order to increase and maximise alternative revenue streams (although I'm in no doubt that it is in the club's interests to get the stadium for other reasons). Once we're over the £1,000,001 figure then the basic squad budget doesn't increase.
My understanding is that the parachute payment is much less than that Boris (£100,000). Where does your info come from?
Both the parachute payment and the £50k payment will only be one offs of course, and only count towards turnover, so (if my numbers are right) they will result in only £37,500 additional wage cap, which is maybe one more player.
Re:
[quote="GodalmingYellow"
My first reaction to these rules is, how come we've only released 8 players?[/quote]
Mainly because the rest are under contract I think. The only OOC players who might get new deals are Tardif, Turley and Quinn (tho I'd be happy if only the first did). My guess is that it was the imminent reduction in wage bill that did for Roget, tho looking at the list of other releasees, I think he is the only one who would have survived had we stayed up...
The other thing is that I sense that at least one or two of those under contract may disappear before August, either paid off or on free transfers.
My first reaction to these rules is, how come we've only released 8 players?[/quote]
Mainly because the rest are under contract I think. The only OOC players who might get new deals are Tardif, Turley and Quinn (tho I'd be happy if only the first did). My guess is that it was the imminent reduction in wage bill that did for Roget, tho looking at the list of other releasees, I think he is the only one who would have survived had we stayed up...
The other thing is that I sense that at least one or two of those under contract may disappear before August, either paid off or on free transfers.
So if I understand this correctly we have £350,000 plus 25% of approx £2.2million (estimated average of last 2 seasons). Which gives us approximately £900,000 to spend.
In 2005 the club spent £1.75 on wages and salaries. Once you account for admin and marketing staff the playing budget was about £1.5 million. So its a fairly big drop even if last season was lower than 04/05. Hopefully there were clauses in recent contracts that reduced the salary if we got relegated.
Buying the stadium and any resultant turnover uplift sounds like it is irrelevant this year as the cap is calculated from previous seasons' turnover.
Talking of contracts I have an email from the then Chief Executive of OCC that states that:
In 2005 the club spent £1.75 on wages and salaries. Once you account for admin and marketing staff the playing budget was about £1.5 million. So its a fairly big drop even if last season was lower than 04/05. Hopefully there were clauses in recent contracts that reduced the salary if we got relegated.
Buying the stadium and any resultant turnover uplift sounds like it is irrelevant this year as the cap is calculated from previous seasons' turnover.
Talking of contracts I have an email from the then Chief Executive of OCC that states that:
I wonder how they squared that one when the club was sold off without the stadium. I can't believe that Kassam is going to support a business he doesn't own from the profits of one that he does. Somebody with connections in the City Council should perhaps do some digging into the curent status.The Heads of Terms (of the stadium land deal) does require the Stadium Company to apply its
profits and Kassam's dividend income as a share holder of the Stadium Company first to the running of the club and secondly to provide financial support to the Club for 25 years.
-
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re:
As SuperOx says Heads of Terms mean diddly squat in legal terms, they are just statements of intent. However, it is common for similar clauses to the Heads to make it into final contracts, so it might be worth a look to make sure."Mally" wrote:So if I understand this correctly we have £350,000 plus 25% of approx £2.2million (estimated average of last 2 seasons). Which gives us approximately £900,000 to spend.
In 2005 the club spent £1.75 on wages and salaries. Once you account for admin and marketing staff the playing budget was about £1.5 million. So its a fairly big drop even if last season was lower than 04/05. Hopefully there were clauses in recent contracts that reduced the salary if we got relegated.
Buying the stadium and any resultant turnover uplift sounds like it is irrelevant this year as the cap is calculated from previous seasons' turnover.
Talking of contracts I have an email from the then Chief Executive of OCC that states that:
I wonder how they squared that one when the club was sold off without the stadium. I can't believe that Kassam is going to support a business he doesn't own from the profits of one that he does. Somebody with connections in the City Council should perhaps do some digging into the curent status.The Heads of Terms (of the stadium land deal) does require the Stadium Company to apply its
profits and Kassam's dividend income as a share holder of the Stadium Company first to the running of the club and secondly to provide financial support to the Club for 25 years.
On the turnover front, there are supposedly special arrangements for those relegated from the league, so one would hope that additional known turnover would be agreed for the playing budget, subject to subsequent audits.
Mally makes the same point I was trying to though, that there is potentially a huge drop in the playing budget.
Re: OCC
“PS: when are the District Auditors findings re the "land Deal" going to be made public?"SuperOx " wrote:Who signed the Heads of Terms on behalf of the city?
Is Heads of Terms a legally binding document I wonder.
PS: when are the District Auditors findings re the "land Deal" going to be made public?
I predict a whitewash.
Last edited by Snake on Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Middle-Aged Spread
- Posts: 1436
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:45 pm
- Location: Stayed at the Manor.
with only one automatic promotion spot available, i don't like all this talk of putting in a shed load of money to buy our way out first time round - i just think it's far too risky.
the first headline i see on my return is that mcsporran has turned us down as he doesn't want to drop down to non-league. i'm not surprised, and suspect we'll see this kind of case too.
have we not learnt over the last few seasons that having the money is one thing, spending it wisely is another? good players are going to need more than a big brown envelope of cash to come and join us now.
if we had stayed in the league, i would have felt very optimistic about promotion next season. but with no league status to attract players, a tighter financial belt, and two promotion spots, i think this is going to be at least as hard as the pessimists think.
i want jim to put a team together on a sensible budget, and see how we go. then if we're looking good come christmas, hopefully we have the chairman now who might back us.
the first headline i see on my return is that mcsporran has turned us down as he doesn't want to drop down to non-league. i'm not surprised, and suspect we'll see this kind of case too.
have we not learnt over the last few seasons that having the money is one thing, spending it wisely is another? good players are going to need more than a big brown envelope of cash to come and join us now.
if we had stayed in the league, i would have felt very optimistic about promotion next season. but with no league status to attract players, a tighter financial belt, and two promotion spots, i think this is going to be at least as hard as the pessimists think.
i want jim to put a team together on a sensible budget, and see how we go. then if we're looking good come christmas, hopefully we have the chairman now who might back us.
-
- Puberty
- Posts: 480
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:17 pm
- Location: Headington - but would prefer Cancun
Personally, I would be disappointed if the plan for next year was anything but "Get us out of the conference".
If we dont invest heavily now, we certainly wont be in a good position come January.
Kassam had lots of chances over the years where IF he had invested 50-100K we would have either not got relegated or got promotion.
No player will come to us if we say "we are trying to get out next year - but it may take between 2 and X".
How ever hard it is to attract players to us this year, it will be twice as hard in the 2nd year in the conference. In theory, this year we have a good chance, some ex league players, decent budget etc. The 2nd year none of that will count.
I am glad Smith is at the club (not as manager though) as he SHOULD be able to attract players - well, that what everyone told us! Doesn't look great so far but I am happy to eat my words come Aug.
Happy days
If we dont invest heavily now, we certainly wont be in a good position come January.
Kassam had lots of chances over the years where IF he had invested 50-100K we would have either not got relegated or got promotion.
No player will come to us if we say "we are trying to get out next year - but it may take between 2 and X".
How ever hard it is to attract players to us this year, it will be twice as hard in the 2nd year in the conference. In theory, this year we have a good chance, some ex league players, decent budget etc. The 2nd year none of that will count.
I am glad Smith is at the club (not as manager though) as he SHOULD be able to attract players - well, that what everyone told us! Doesn't look great so far but I am happy to eat my words come Aug.
Happy days
One other thing you forgot to mention, Matt, is the fact that this is just the Oxford Mail’s version of District Auditor Andy Burns’ story. It originated from a verbal update to City officers and elected councillors about a week ago and there is still no document to read as yet.
It also does not say what the City Council’s valuation was, and what the land was actually worth, though Newsquest already know all the figures as a key report was leaked to them a few weeks ago.
Once we have an internet link to the final report on the matter then I’ll be more likely to comment in depth, but as a taster I think the Audit Commission should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves why it took six years to finally come to a decision about how the Minchery Farm deal was done.
And for SuperOx in particular. Just what's your problem with this issue?
It also does not say what the City Council’s valuation was, and what the land was actually worth, though Newsquest already know all the figures as a key report was leaked to them a few weeks ago.
Once we have an internet link to the final report on the matter then I’ll be more likely to comment in depth, but as a taster I think the Audit Commission should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves why it took six years to finally come to a decision about how the Minchery Farm deal was done.
And for SuperOx in particular. Just what's your problem with this issue?
Just to finish this thread off here is the last word on the matter from those nice people in the Audit Commission...
http://www.oxford.gov.uk/files/meetingd ... em%206.pdf
http://www.oxford.gov.uk/files/meetingd ... em%206.pdf