Not good enough

[Dr Bob]

I feel our performances over the season have not been consistent enough, nor of high enough quality to put us where we 'should' be. On what basis I am saying that, however, is a little harder to pin down. Turnover is a factor. Absolute and relative budget sizes are factors. But so too are the players brought in and let go, how many, how frequently, etc. In what formation are they played? What do the manager and coaching staff do with them in training? How are their man management skills?

What we are talking about here is the result of a very complex jigsaw puzzle, only one bit of which (albeit important) is money. Football management requires lots of skills, all coming into alignment, for a successful team to be produced.

There is a very important and very detailed discussion to be had about budgets etc. My concern is that the performance of the team under CW currently is not optimal given the pieces of the jigsaw he has to play with. Then again, we have got better each year under him.

The question for me is simple (even if the answer is not) - does he have the ability to continue taking us forward? If no, then I would say things were not good enough and change is needed. If yes, then changing things now would be very dangerous indeed - and still risky if the change was made at the end of the season.

[Snake]

True, no one has said Kelvin has lied, but we’ve had plenty of previous Oxford United chairmen in recent times who have lied their arses off so the track record ain’t good. The best one was “the builders (at Minchery Farm) are still on their Christmas break

[pottersrightboot]

I dnlt understand why posters can't accept Kelvin's public answer re budgets. I mean, why would he lie?

We've had it for Saturday now by the way. Two of our best players out. No wonder Leven has been off colour recently. Be interested to see Chapman play . I'd put him straight in on Saturday, he's match fit.

This has been a terrible season for injuries, just bad luck or could any of this have been avoided?

No one has said Kelvin has lied.

We don't know what questions Kelvin has been asked or what answers he gave, or in what context these alleged conversations took place.

Apart from one single public statement by Kelvin at the start of the season, we've only had various spurious posts claiming that Kelvin reckons we have the 7th to 8th largest budget. None of what has been written on here about that has any degree of satisfactory certainty.

Even if Kelvin said &quoton a like for like basis our player wages bill is the 7th or 8th largest in League 2 this season&quot (and I very much doubt he has said that) that doesn't make him right.

What I don't understand is why some posters can't accept that their might be alternative views or explanations from the &quotofficial&quot line as interpreted by spurious sources. It is simple minded acceptance of anything someone is told that led to the club having idiots like Nick Merry in a place of power. Or may be the proliteriat are not allowed individual thoughts in this Brave New World.

Go and ask Kelvin these burning questions yourself as others have suggested.

He always fronted up to us directly on budget queries like this when I was involved with Oxvox. Why would he be dissembling now?

It just so happens that his answers appear to chime with the information provided by Slappy.

Yes, next set opf accounts will be interesting Snake. And no Snake I won't be changing my handle next season.

Will you still be supporting Oxford though? I mean Swansea are doing so well, like.

[Brahma Bull]

Instead of claiming everyone is wrong Terry including my spurious posts, at what point will you go and meet the Kelvin Thomas and take advantage of his open door policy?

I can categorically confirm, he is happy to discuss this with you.

[Snake]

Go and ask Kelvin these burning questions yourself as others have suggested.

Will you still be supporting Oxford though? I mean Swansea are doing so well, like.

a) Of course I've asked Kelvin.

b) I'm missing Wigan away on Saturday, and that makes six games I've missed this season (home and away).

c) I like to see smallish football clubs grow and this is how you help to do it- http://forum.planetswans.co.uk/viewtopi ... mpt=117050

d) Please just be done with it and change your handle to your real name and stick with it.

[GodalmingYellow]

Instead of claiming everyone is wrong Terry including my spurious posts, at what point will you go and meet the Kelvin Thomas and take advantage of his open door policy?

I can categorically confirm, he is happy to discuss this with you.

Err, I'm not claiming everyone is wrong and we don't do personalised finger pointing on here, and for the record it is only 4 or 5 vociferous defenders of hierarchy that are arguing, not everyone as you put it, and it may well turn out that I am wrong. So what? Big deal! It's happened before and it will happen many more times.

I wasn't even saying you were wrong (although your posts on this topic are some of the more spurious), I was saying that what you posted didn't deal with the point for the reasons I've already given previously.

I am saying on the evidence available for the current year, bar a single statement from Kelvin at the start of the season when budgets were estimated and based on last year, our budget would appear to be the 3rd largest. It isn't a difficult thought process.

Slappy has produced some evidence from last season, which might or might not in a few cases suggest that what I've said may not be accurate, but as that evidence was based on last year's, which in all of the cases we know to be significantly inflated compared to this season because the wage cap was higher, and in 2 possibly 3 of the cases we know were significantly inflated compared to this season for particular reasons. The remaining cases are indicators and nothing more at this stage.

Like several others, you are mis-reading this discussion. This debate was about whether Wilder has performed well enough with the resources at his disposal. The discussion on who has the biggest budget is a sidetrack.

I am sure Kelvin would be willing to meet me to discuss it Simon, but I don't really see why you and Tim think I would want to undertake a 150 mile round trip to do so, just to try to prove or disprove a piece of information in an internet forum discussion. Maybe you take these debates more seriously than me, but I've got enough to do without wasting time and money chasing Kelvin Thomas across the country to ask his opinion, and I am sure he has got enough to do as well. This is supposed to be a fun debate amongst like minded fans of a football club, not US style Primaries where everything has to be taken to the nth degree. Get some perspective Simon! If I had time with Kelvin Thomas, I wouldn't waste it by asking who he thought had a bigger player wages budget than us.

[GodalmingYellow]

Gillingham 2010 a/cs turnover 4,780,003
Cost of sales 3,894,647
Admin expenses 1,240,884
operating loss 355,528
[staff costs total 2,864,600]
-----------------------------
Bristol Rovers 2010 a/cs turnover 4,543,346
operating expenditure 6,334,519
donations ||195,436
player amortisation 247,674
operating loss 1,843,411
[player and staff costs 4,030,571]
-----------------------------
Crewe 2010 a/cs turnover 3,507,871
operating expenditure 4,528,134
operating loss 1,020,263
[staff costs 2,754,505]
-----------------------------
Sw***N 2010 a/cs turnover 5,335,163
cost of sales 4,952,345
operating expenditure 865,181 (includes exceptional credit of 1,044,136)
profit on player sales 983,197
operating profit 500,834
[staff costs 4,296,417]
-----------------------------
Port Vale 2010 a/cs turnover 3,561,788
cost of sales 687,669
player and staff costs 2,526,300 (of which players 1,296,016)
depreciation 91,096
other operating costs 513,851
operating loss 257,128
-----------------------------
So that's Shrewsbury, Bristol Rovers, s*****n, Gillingham, Crewe, Port Vale (and presumably Crawley too) who all have much higher turnover and wage cap available than us, based on the past.

Haha, I've just spotted your schoolboy error Slappy.

All of those accounts are 2010 accounts forming the basis of the 2009/10 football season. They are all 2 seasons old, when all those clubs, except for Port Vale and Crewe, were playing in a higher division and were not subject to the wage cap.

In the case of Port Vale, they spent less on their players in that season (when they were allowed to spend 60% of turnover) then than we do now, and now they are only able to spend 55% of turnover and they are about to go into administration due to massive loans and outstanding tax. Port Vale have been having to get rid of players to make ends meet. Their budget is very clearly not as big as ours and wasn't in the year you have quoted nor in any year since.

In the case of Crewe, 2009/10 was their first season down from League 1, and their crowds were about 10% higher than they are now. In addition, they were able to spend 60% of turnover on players then, whereas now it is only 55%. That equates to an 18% drop in their maximum player budget over the period. I can tell you that their total wages cost was £2,505,066, with 74 out of 251 staff being players, managers and coaching staff. The reason for the apparent high numbers in money and staffing is only because of their academy. Their high turnover was was inflated by the sale of players amounting to £375,000. In that season they released 10 players from playing contracts, sent another out on loan and sold 2, with the only players coming in being on loan. Again I have to say you are going to struggle to convince me, and no doubt everyone else, that their players wages budget exceeds ours.

I hope you didn't have to pay to download those accounts, as that was wasted money.

So I'm sorry to say that every single one of those sets of figures you have quoted is completely meaningless in this debate, and I hope those that have jumped on my argument so vociferously, will now at least retain a more open mind.

Feel free to download some more figures.

Based on the information available, I reckon only Crawley and Swinedown definitely have higher budgets than us, with Shrewsbury still to be looked at in detail.

As always I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.

[A-Ro]

we don't do personalised finger pointing on here

Haha, I've just spotted your schoolboy error Slappy.

Just saying like.

[GodalmingYellow]

Shrewsbury 2010 a/cs turnover 3,684,462
Cost of sales 3,557,754
Admin expenses 605,807
operating loss 479,099
(staff costs total 2,640,444)
----------------------------------------
OUFC 2010 a/cs turnover 2,614,045
direct operating costs 1,964,038
admin expenses 740,873
operating loss 90,866
(Staff costs - not disclosed)
----------------------------------------
SO: Shrewsbury spent as much on staff as OUFC's entire turnover for 2010. I think I can guess which club had the biggest playing budget.

OK Shrews 2009/10 turnover is inflated by the sale of Grant Holt for £400k, which is a one off increase, and again their player budget would have been 60%, whereas it is now only 55%. However, since moving to their new stadium, they rent facilities to a 5 a side league and many other off field commercial activities due to the facilities they have available, which boosts their turnover considerably. Without having access to more detailed information, I would think it is quite possible that their player wages budget is at least equal to ours, despite their lower crowds.

[GodalmingYellow]

we don't do personalised finger pointing on here

Haha, I've just spotted your schoolboy error Slappy.

Just saying like.

Me and Slappy have met several times, we live fairly near each other, and have discussed forum speak before. We have an ongoing saying of schoolboy error to each other when one of us makes a mistake. Purely humourous and Slappy well knows it is only a humourous comment. If Slappy found that in any way offensive (or if anyone found anything I said offensive) I would be horrified and apologise immediately.

I've met Simon a few times as well, but to me his comment felt a bit more in your face (well my face), not that I'm bothered, I just wanted to make sure things didn't get too heated. I've got a lot of time for Simon, who is a pretty decent lad.

[A-Ro]

we don't do personalised finger pointing on here

Haha, I've just spotted your schoolboy error Slappy.

Just saying like.

Me and Slappy have met several times, we live fairly near each other, and have discussed forum speak before. We have an ongoing saying of schoolboy error to each other when one of us makes a mistake. Purely humourous and Slappy well knows it is only a humourous comment. If Slappy found that in any way offensive I would be horrified and apologise immediately.

I've met Simon a few times as well, but to me his comment felt a bit more in your face (well my face), not that I'm bothered, I just wanted to make sure things didn't get too heated. I've got a lot of time for Simon, who is a pretty decent lad.

Nobody else on here is party to any of that information so your &quotSlappy&quot comment can be read as normal etiquette, then where would we be?

[GodalmingYellow]

Just saying like.

Me and Slappy have met several times, we live fairly near each other, and have discussed forum speak before. We have an ongoing saying of schoolboy error to each other when one of us makes a mistake. Purely humourous and Slappy well knows it is only a humourous comment. If Slappy found that in any way offensive I would be horrified and apologise immediately.

I've met Simon a few times as well, but to me his comment felt a bit more in your face (well my face), not that I'm bothered, I just wanted to make sure things didn't get too heated. I've got a lot of time for Simon, who is a pretty decent lad.

Nobody else on here is party to any of that information so your &quotSlappy&quot comment can be read as normal etiquette, then where would we be?

No one else needs to be party to it. Slappy hasn't complained, I hope Slappy wouldn't complain. I would hope nobody would complain about a suggestion of them having made a schoolboy error. It's hardly abusive. I think you may be taking this point to an extrene tbh, and you could just as easily have sent me a pm with these comments, rather than diverting from the debate.

[A-Ro]

GY in &quotdo as I say not as I do&quot shocker.

[GodalmingYellow]

GY in &quotdo as I say not as I do&quot shocker.

I think that is grossly unfair and mis-representative.

I am trying to think of a single good reason why are you persisting with this?

[Isaac]

To try and get this back on to the exciting topics such as accountancy and attendance statistics....

I think what's interesting from Slappy's figures is that there isn't necessarily a clear correlation between attendances and turnover

For instance, to include average attendence figures for the 09/10 season
Gillingham - turnover=4,780,003 attendance= 6335 (current season=5180)
Rovers - turnover=4,543,346 attendance=7043 (current season=6043)
Crewe - turnover=3,507,871 attendance=4075 (current season=3578)
Port Vale - turnover=3,561,78 attendance=5080 (current season=4883)
Shrewsbury - turnover=3,684,462 attendance=5482 (current season=5405)
Oxford - turnover=2,614,045 attendance=6004 (current season=7179)

It's difficult to extrapolate out to this season, especially as we were in the conference 09/10, but for instance Rovers turned over nearly £2m more than us (in the division above, but still) on only 1000 more fans. Put it this way, on similar attendance figures to Rovers, we're not going turn over £4.5m this year are we? Obviously there is additional sponsorship and tv money higher up the leagues, but enough to explain all these differences? I don't know.

So, I still think it's far too simplistic to say higher attendance=higher turnover, but actually it makes me realise that to truly progress as a club the turnover will need to be increased considerably. The most obvious way to do this would be for the club to buy the stadium - adding 1.6m (2010 figures) to the turnover straight away. Of course with this comes the risk that this offers us the chance to overspend on players and spiral into further debt.