Thetownend.com

Swindon Town FC => The Boardroom => Topic started by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 14:19:10



Title: Budget
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 14:19:10
With Mansfield sacking Flitcroft after failing to get promotion with a reported £3m budget, shouldnít we have done much better with a, supposed, £2-2.5m budget?

Canít attach any blame to Wellens for this but, Flitcroft again, and Brown both managed to squander what is a decent budget for L2.

Poor recruitment by both - maybe Brown especially guilty of such a poorly balanced squad and a Flitcroft for some rank poor signings.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Flashheart on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 14:26:59
With Mansfield sacking Flitcroft after failing to get promotion with a reported £3m budget, shouldnít we have done much better with a, supposed, £2-2.5m budget?


Yep. Brown did VERY poorly for what he had at his disposal.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 14:47:11
Firstly I wouldn't take anything that Power says as factual, other than his initial stated aim of reducing the wage bill and then relegation to Div 4 costing so necessitating cuts to funding.

You can get a an idea of budget by looking at the agents fees....

Secondly no manager gets them all right, Flitcroft's recruitment, given circumstances wasn't particularly bad... perhaps Robertson, a waste but Lancashire a bit unlucky with injury.... we were around auto when he went lame.   Brown's  reflected a budget cut.... which led to an over dependence on loans, whereas Flitcroft could use them a bit more as extras.... like H Smith and Gordon.

Thirdly the present Power approach does seem to include leaving a bit of budget spare for January to have a look at what is required.

Fourthly, Div 4 is pretty even, the likes of Accy and Wycombe have shown you can succeed with a small budget, whereas Notts and Chesterfield have had so say similar to ours and gone down.   It should be noted that Mansfield achieved their highest finish for 17 years, so Radford's investment allowed at last that progress.

We're a bit different having just had our lowest finish since 83/84.... if as stated Wellens gets a Brown type budget then it will be very much down, to him and Jewell whether we go Accy or Notts.... no guarantees in Div 4.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Panda Paws on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 15:12:17
Firstly I wouldn't take anything that Power says as factual, other than his initial stated aim of reducing the wage bill and then relegation to Div 4 costing so necessitating cuts to funding.


So in a nutshell, pick and choose what you believe to fit your chosen narrative. That could catch on.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 15:21:04
So in a nutshell, pick and choose what you believe to fit your chosen narrative. That could catch on.

No what you do is look at how things of panned out over a period of time and apply a bit of historical analysis, you can then start to see patterns and and get a picture of what has been going on.

Of course, it doesn't mean it's 100% right, but often does back up opinions.... for example, it's my opinion that we've done badly in cups in recent years, so no great surprise that the bit of work on goalscorers, reveals nobody has scored 10 in the last 25 years.

These patterns and pictures then beg some aetiological analysis... wherein lies some of the fun of being a fan.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Paolo69 on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 15:52:22
No what you do is look at how things of panned out over a period of time and apply a bit of historical analysis, you can then start to see patterns and and get a picture of what has been going on.

Of course, it doesn't mean it's 100% right, but often does back up opinions.... for example, it's my opinion that we've done badly in cups in recent years, so no great surprise that the bit of work on goalscorers, reveals nobody has scored 10 in the last 25 years.

These patterns and pictures then beg some aetiological analysis... wherein lies some of the fun of being a fan.

Pretty sure Panda's synopsis is more accurate than any of your aetiological analysis Reg. Sorry!

If we use your example of cup goalscorers, does this take into account players moving on from virtually all clubs much more quickly these days or the fact that there's not endless midweek replays to decide the winner? The game's changed so you're effectively comparing apples with pears.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: RobertT on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 15:59:35
I prefer Apples.  Power will only fund Carrots though.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 16:06:00
Pretty sure Panda's synopsis is more accurate than any of your aetiological analysis Reg. Sorry!

If we use your example of cup goalscorers, does this take into account players moving on from virtually all clubs much more quickly these days or the fact that there's not endless midweek replays to decide the winner? The game's changed so you're effectively comparing apples with pears.

It's a fair point about replays, which were binned off in the LC in the early noughties, thus denying an opportunity for more scorers, but they just about remain i the FA Cup... further some on the list like Shearer and White, in R1 and 2 never got the opportunity to stack up goals v non leaguers, and were about in the days of similar movement to now. Therefore comparisons are a legitimate guide...

Similarly, the agents fees list shows us that having finished 13th, 10 of the clubs above us paid out more to agents at point of recruitment, which may indicate acquiring a perceived higher grade of player, that 2 who spent less, finished above us shows it's not a perfect corellation, but again a guide to providing answers.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Paolo69 on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 16:26:30
It's a fair point about replays, which were binned off in the LC in the early noughties, thus denying an opportunity for more scorers, but they just about remain i the FA Cup... further some on the list like Shearer and White, in R1 and 2 never got the opportunity to stack up goals v non leaguers, and were about in the days of similar movement to now. Therefore comparisons are a legitimate guide...

Similarly, the agents fees list shows us that having finished 13th, 10 of the clubs above us paid out more to agents at point of recruitment, which may indicate acquiring a perceived higher grade of player, that 2 who spent less, finished above us shows it's not a perfect corellation, but again a guide to providing answers.

No way did players in the Shearer/White era move as regularly as they do now but agreed a few players of the era of the top two leagues did miss out on a few cup games. So even bigger apples and pears to compare then.

IMO the agent fees list could show anything you want it to show. Obviously you've managed to work it into your narrative. I'm sure we're all shocked.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Panda Paws on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 16:39:27
No what you do is look at how things of panned out over a period of time and apply a bit of historical analysis, you can then start to see patterns and and get a picture of what has been going on.

Of course, it doesn't mean it's 100% right, but often does back up opinions.... for example, it's my opinion that we've done badly in cups in recent years, so no great surprise that the bit of work on goalscorers, reveals nobody has scored 10 in the last 25 years.

These patterns and pictures then beg some aetiological analysis... wherein lies some of the fun of being a fan.

You've literally typed that you believe nothing that Power says other than the things he says that back your narrative...?


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Flashheart on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 16:43:55
Every... fucking... thread.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: horlock07 on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 16:44:54
Firstly I wouldn't take anything that Power says as factual,

 :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick: :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 16:47:01
IMO the agent fees list could show anything you want it to show. Obviously you've managed to work it into your narrative. I'm sure we're all shocked.
Any budget/finanical comments can be spun to fit any narrative TBH and as we know some are far better at that than others!

Town budget cut....Power fed up and thinking about moving on.
Town budget raised....Power fed up being in this division, trying to get us promoted before selling up.
Town budget stays the same....Power fed up and won't put any extra money in.
Agent fees high...we are paying far too much for average players in agents fees.
Agent fees low...we aren't paying enough to attract the right players.
Agent fees the same....we can't compete with the bigger teams in attracting the better players with higher agent fees.

etc etc

According to the Mansfield forum their budget is likely to be cut next season from a figure said to be £4.5m this season, Flitcroft had a budget cut from the £5m budget Evans had the previous season.

Whatever our budget or anyone elses this coming season I hope we have enough to scrape together a decent side mixed with some experience, some good prospects and some loans. That is all I want. Players who want to play for the club and make us competitive again.

Also just because we haven't heard of a certain player does mean he is automatically shit and visa versa...if he is a well known name then he is not going to automatically make us better. Look at Notts County...similarly look at Tranmere at the other end of the table.

Some players fit clubs, some clubs fit players, some manager styles fit players etc etc

It would be pointless Lincoln signing Doughty as they lump the ball over midfield rather than playing through it which is why they have players the size and build of Bostwick in the side, play breakers not play makers.

I would like to think that Power ISNT telling porkies when it comes to budgets and that he is backing up Wellens in the transfer market as he has done with all his managers previously. Why would he lie when he says we will be a top 7 budget next season and getting fans hopes up just to give Wellens a bottom 7 budget? doesn't make any sense.

Fans aren't stupid, they know when the club sign a cheap player who can just do the job (McCourt) compared to a decent player who we can build a side around (Doughty), we can tell when we replace a decent player with somebody shit in the same position.

What would Power gain in telling us we have a decent budget then not delivering it? nothing, in fact quite the opposite.

Also Power will pay fees for signings, many of our signings cost us money rather than arriving on frees.

Yes the fees may sound exaggerated such as £300k for Woolery and £400k for Vigs but I expect those fees are made up with promotion clauses/sell ons etc so they are "best case scenario" fees not basic fee like they used to be in the old days.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 16:49:24
There are only 2 ways of looking at it.

Either Power is lying about the budget or the managers since, and including, Luke have been fucking useless.

Tbh, a budget of £2-2.5m should get you a PO spot.

Iíd imagine the relegated clubs, bar Rochdale probably, will be well funded. Strong league next season.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 16:53:22
Iíd imagine the relegated clubs, bar Rochdale probably, will be well funded. Strong league next season.
Plymouth and Bradford will be but Scunthorpe and Walsall don't have 2 pennies to rub together.

Orient and Salford will both be well backed though I would think.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 16:56:22
No way did players in the Shearer/White era move as regularly as they do now but agreed a few players of the era of the top two leagues did miss out on a few cup games. So even bigger apples and pears to compare then.

IMO the agent fees list could show anything you want it to show. Obviously you've managed to work it into your narrative. I'm sure we're all shocked.

Shearer did 4 years.... Kaiyne and Keshi will be up to 3 at season's end, who knows perhaps they might extend. Player have been pretty mobile for some years now. Jimmy Quinn for example, but he used to come back.

I'm interested to hear how you think signing a player works, in the current set up.  Do you rule out the possibility that if you want player x, that the agent rates at a certain value on what he and the player reckons his worth to be, due to present wage, experience etc, that you'll have to pay a bit more for the perceived better standard? Further by paying that bit more for a perceived better standard do you rule out it being reflected in the final spending figures?


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 17:03:46
There are only 2 ways of looking at it.

Either Power is lying about the budget or the managers since, and including, Luke have been fucking useless.

Tbh, a budget of £2-2.5m should get you a PO spot.

Iíd imagine the relegated clubs, bar Rochdale probably, will be well funded. Strong league next season.

Rochdale didn't go down...

I suspect Power spins things a bit.... it's only to be expected.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: ReadingRed on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 17:28:50
Power also said that we now have a Championship-level scouting setup. What's the benefit of this? Does it mean our transfer budget potentially goes further - we pick up gems that other D4 clubs have overlooked?


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 18:24:02
Plymouth and Bradford will be but Scunthorpe and Walsall don't have 2 pennies to rub together.

Orient and Salford will both be well backed though I would think.

Iím not wholly up to speed vis a vis the rules on club expenditure v income. So how do the financial rules effect Div2? If there are mechanisms relating to expenditure being a % of turnover then surely we should be able to compete at the higher end of the league. Of course that assumes that the Grand Fromage is prepared to spend upto the level we are allowed too.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Batch on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 18:29:18
but income isn't just gate recipes, 'sponsorships' and the like count. Hence FGR.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 18:50:04
but income isn't just gate recipes, 'sponsorships' and the like count. Hence FGR.

No, I am sure you are right. However, if you look at FGR attendances v ours and I am only stabbing in the dark because, frankly I cannot be arsed to look, surely we have roughly 3k more per game. If so at £20 a pop which may be generous but use it as a starting point, that is £60,000 per game extra income. Times that by 23 equals £1.3m in turnover extra. So is Ecotricityís spindorship £1.3m more than Imagine Cruising per year?


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 19:25:04
Power also said that we now have a Championship-level scouting setup. What's the benefit of this? Does it mean our transfer budget potentially goes further - we pick up gems that other D4 clubs have overlooked?

Most clubs use something like Scout 7, an online database.... Power probably means we're now doing the same.  Chorley probably then goes and looks.

Some of Wellens Jan recruits like Theo and Bennett, were player he'd played with... so quite a reliable method, even if having a natural shelf life.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 19:42:32
No, I am sure you are right. However, if you look at FGR attendances v ours and I am only stabbing in the dark because, frankly I cannot be arsed to look, surely we have roughly 3k more per game. If so at £20 a pop which may be generous but use it as a starting point, that is £60,000 per game extra income. Times that by 23 equals £1.3m in turnover extra. So is Ecotricityís spindorship £1.3m more than Imagine Cruising per year?
I think owners in L2 can loan their clubs on a personal basis - i.e. not landing their club with debt. Itís how Salford will chuck millions at it.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: RobertT on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 20:08:30
Yep - Share Capital or Sponsorship are the two main ways clubs like FGR and Mansfield can push the boat out.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 20:47:27
No, I am sure you are right. However, if you look at FGR attendances v ours and I am only stabbing in the dark because, frankly I cannot be arsed to look, surely we have roughly 3k more per game. If so at £20 a pop which may be generous but use it as a starting point, that is £60,000 per game extra income. Times that by 23 equals £1.3m in turnover extra. So is Ecotricityís spindorship £1.3m more than Imagine Cruising per year?

Last set of FGR accounts 2017/8.

Turnover £4.9m made up of
Match day revenue £1m (up from £657k)
Advertising and Sponsorship £2.43m (up from £961k)
Other Football revenue £1.25m (up from £198k

Also £650k of share capital injected.

Salaries £3.42m and a profit of £422k compared to £2.16m loss.


Not sure many clubs outside the Championship would get sponsorship over £1m a season. Presumably, football revenue is the solidarity payments. Shows how you can put that sort of budget together.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Panda Paws on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 20:48:34
Most clubs use something like Scout 7, an online database.... Power probably means we're now doing the same.  Chorley probably then goes and looks.

Or listen to the RW interview today, which details exactly how they work. A clue... It's the opposite to this, and it's Wyscout.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 06:49:15
Last set of FGR accounts 2017/8.

Turnover £4.9m made up of
Match day revenue £1m (up from £657k)
Advertising and Sponsorship £2.43m (up from £961k)
Other Football revenue £1.25m (up from £198k

Also £650k of share capital injected.

Salaries £3.42m and a profit of £422k compared to £2.16m loss.




Not sure many clubs outside the Championship would get sponsorship over £1m a season. Presumably, football revenue is the solidarity payments. Shows how you can put that sort of budget together.

So how does that compare to our last set of published accounts? I would also venture to suggest that our general overheads (excluding the player budget) are more than theirs. If I am correct there, it may mean that once we own the ground we lose the rent to the council which in turn could be then put into the playing budget?


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 07:26:34
Or listen to the RW interview today, which details exactly how they work. A clue... It's the opposite to this, and it's Wyscout.

So do we use an online database for scouting like I said?


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 08:19:52
So do we use an online database for scouting like I said?

You are a knowledgable and resourceful chap, why donít you email the club? Youíll then be able flesh out one of your posts with your knowledge and enchant everyone else to hang onto every word you type of the subject. Iím beside myself with anticipated excitement.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Panda Paws on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 08:22:15
So do we use an online database for scouting like I said?

Yes, but RW is very clear in that he watches players first, or takes cues from performances against us, and then goes deeper on Wyscout, as opposed to your suggestion that they scour a scouting platform then go watch them. Online video databases are not the best place to start, as you miss the context of the game, but can inform further opinion, according to RW.

You should watch the interview, it's very interesting, although it's up to you which parts of it you believe.


Title: Re: Re: Budget
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 08:34:12
So how does that compare to our last set of published accounts? I would also venture to suggest that our general overheads (excluding the player budget) are more than theirs. If I am correct there, it may mean that once we own the ground we lose the rent to the council which in turn could be then put into the playing budget?
It's hard to tell as we don't publish turnover or salary costs. Presumably our gate receipts would be over £2m as our gates are double and more than FGR.

Football Revenue/Solidarity payments are going to be fairly confident unless you pick up TV appearances or a cup run.

Agree our overheads including rent are higher.

I guess we don't know what has been spent on the training ground and CG purchase that are passed back to the club. Those costs are outside the salary cap and could be covered by director loans.

It would suggest there is a funding gap of maybe £1.5 to £2m if you want a £3.5m playing budget.



Sent from my HTC U11


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 08:41:03
Then thereís interest paid on any loans. The % Power didnít know was being charged!


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Flashheart on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 08:52:51

You should watch the interview, it's very interesting,

Where can one find it?


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Panda Paws on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 09:01:55
Where can one find it?

On the official site. Might be behind the paywall, can't remember.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Flashheart on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 09:07:29
Got it, thanks. There's no paywall.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 09:25:48
Yes, but RW is very clear in that he watches players first, or takes cues from performances against us, and then goes deeper on Wyscout, as opposed to your suggestion that they scour a scouting platform then go watch them. Online video databases are not the best place to start, as you miss the context of the game, but can inform further opinion, according to RW.

You should watch the interview, it's very interesting, although it's up to you which parts of it you believe.

Fair enough but my OP was in response to Reading's query about how we do scouting, at which I suggested, as seems to be the case we use an online database... further at some point presumably either before as you say or, after or both Chorley takes a look.

I'd like to think, we still scout by old skool methods of the scout, watching games in the middle of nowhere on a wet Wednesday, probably on the back of a hunch from the tea lady or similar.... sort of methods that got us the likes of Colin Gordon, Jimmy Quinn, if not quite Charlie Austin.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Exiled Bob on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 11:45:59
....either before as you say or, after or both .......
Hedging your bets again Reg? 8)


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 12:57:49
Hedging your bets again Reg? 8)

No took on board the point that PP made about presumably Chorley, looking at players before using the database, and adjusted accordingly.


Title: Re: Budget
Post by: theakston2k on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 14:36:30
Last set of FGR accounts 2017/8.

Turnover £4.9m made up of
Match day revenue £1m (up from £657k)
Advertising and Sponsorship £2.43m (up from £961k)
Other Football revenue £1.25m (up from £198k

Also £650k of share capital injected.

Salaries £3.42m and a profit of £422k compared to £2.16m loss.


Not sure many clubs outside the Championship would get sponsorship over £1m a season. Presumably, football revenue is the solidarity payments. Shows how you can put that sort of budget together.
So of that £3 million of the turnover is effectively from the owner as the sponsorship will be Ecotricity which is his company. That 'profit' is more like a £2.6m loss so operating way beyond their means, doubt they'll exist in 10 years time much like R&D.


Title: Re: Re: Budget
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 16:39:18
So of that £3 million of the turnover is effectively from the owner as the sponsorship will be Ecotricity which is his company. That 'profit' is more like a £2.6m loss so operating way beyond their means, doubt they'll exist in 10 years time much like R&D.
Yeah, if Dale Vince does an Andrew Black and loses interest then they would be in trouble. FGR were heading out of the Conference before he took over.

I guess at the moment owning FGR and the link to Ecotricity suits his agenda especially with his old Eco warrior friends in the news all the time.

He hasn't got his way on the new stadium yet which might grow the supporter base but look at small clubs like Yeovil and Burton who made it to the Championship. They didn't increase their support long term and the gates fell away.

Sent from my HTC U11


Title: Re: Re: Budget
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Thursday, May 16, 2019, 17:02:42
Yeah, if Dale Vince does an Andrew Black and loses interest then they would be in trouble. FGR were heading out of the Conference before he took over.

I guess at the moment owning FGR and the link to Ecotricity suits his agenda especially with his old Eco warrior friends in the news all the time.

He hasn't got his way on the new stadium yet which might grow the supporter base but look at small clubs like Yeovil and Burton who made it to the Championship. They didn't increase their support long term and the gates fell away.

Sent from my HTC U11

Well look at it this way. If sponsorship is their driver,then they ought to eventually go places. However, even that business model will have a ceiling. My best guess is Championship. That will probably take about 5-10 years all told if successful. If not it is back to the NL or bumbling around the basement of the EFL, no shame in that is there P a u l?