Championship - Wages League Table 2011/12

[Hoop Blah]

no they didnt.

Actually, many of them did argue that. This also suggests we over-pay for some very average players.

No, I don't think they did.

And we won the league.

There's been significant comment on here and everywhere else that McDermott overachieved and performed miracles in getting us promoted. Our budget was one of the top in the league and we finished marginally better than the rest.

Surely a fair chunk of that will be bonuses from actual promotion though. It's pretty telling that 3 of the top 4 were the promoted teams which suggests that the table is pretty skewered in favour of bonuses.

There's certainly an element of that but I don't think the bonuses would amount to such a massive amount (the last time we went up the players were moaning at how small those bonus payments were).

Irrespective of that, the offer and motivation of bonus payments is surely a decent chunk of the budget on offer and the ability of the manager to attract and motivate the players so I don't see why it should be dismissed quite so easily.

[Hoop Blah]

Do all clubs announce their accounts with a year end in the summer, otherwise this is surely as much guess work as anything.

I've looked at quite a few over the years and I'm pretty sure they all do run on a financial year that matches up to the football season.

So wouldn't separation of basic wages/bonuses be more revealing?

Yes, it would.

The figures should also be split into a pre and post AZ, as B McD went on a bit of a spending spree in January getting in not just Jason Roberts but a host of back ups (Mullins, Cwyka) who barely played, but certainly got paid

It may well be more revealing but I can't imagine any club is willing to divulge that level of detail. This data is taken from the published accounts for the clubs and all they need to show is total cost of staff.

In terms of splitting out pre and post TSI, did we do that with the points? If not, why would we ignore the combined cost of staff?

[SydenhamRoyal]

Do all clubs announce their accounts with a year end in the summer, otherwise this is surely as much guess work as anything.

I've looked at quite a few over the years and I'm pretty sure they all do run on a financial year that matches up to the football season.

So wouldn't separation of basic wages/bonuses be more revealing?

Yes, it would.

The figures should also be split into a pre and post AZ, as B McD went on a bit of a spending spree in January getting in not just Jason Roberts but a host of back ups (Mullins, Cwyka) who barely played, but certainly got paid

It may well be more revealing but I can't imagine any club is willing to divulge that level of detail. This data is taken from the published accounts for the clubs and all they need to show is total cost of staff.

In terms of splitting out pre and post TSI, did we do that with the points? If not, why would we ignore the combined cost of staff?

Someone somewhere on this message thread said that SJM had always ensured we werent the highest spenders (or something to that effect) - so the point I was making was that perhaps that remain true under SJMs stewardship, and the floodgates were opened when AZ took over

[soggy biscuit]

So the teams that throw the most money at it go up (lol @ Leiceter though)

Kind of puts to bed the theory of it being such a competitive league

[Vision]

Surely a fair chunk of that will be bonuses from actual promotion though. It's pretty telling that 3 of the top 4 were the promoted teams which suggests that the table is pretty skewered in favour of bonuses.

There's certainly an element of that but I don't think the bonuses would amount to such a massive amount (the last time we went up the players were moaning at how small those bonus payments were).

Irrespective of that, the offer and motivation of bonus payments is surely a decent chunk of the budget on offer and the ability of the manager to attract and motivate the players so I don't see why it should be dismissed quite so easily.

The point is that you only pay it if you're successful and pick up a premiership windfall anyway as opposed to committing yourself to a crippling wage budget regardless like Leicester. The fact that Leicester aside its the 3 promoted sides that occupy the other top spots suggest that it is a pretty significant amount which makes the graph a bit skewered. I seem to recall the wage bill in 05/06 was significantly higher than the previous season. Even allowing for an increased expenditure that summer its the significance of win bonuses,promotion,winning the championship etc. I reckon promotion made a difference of about 5 or 6 places on that graph. That would prtobably leave us around 8th as far as a weekly wage bill is concerned which is probably about right.

I remember a similiar conversation a couple of years back with regards to Blackpool who it was perceived had been promoted on a shoestring budget but when the wage figures for the year were released ended up as the top 5 payers in the division.

I guess the other factor to consider is that if you are contending in January then clubs are more likely to push the boat out in that transfer window as the risk/reward factor changes significantly.

[Seal]

Didn't we only make a small loss of say £3m? That's very well managed at a very competitive level. Certainly gives me confidence with next season in mind. It should be easier to get our targets this time, rather than consistently lose out..

it was consistently around 5 + million in the championship. even with parachute payments
when JMs money dried up we had to make that up by selling players, but it was agrred that this was abetter prospect than trying to reduce the wage bill further

Loss was well under £5m. More like £2.5m:

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/321543045394882560/photo/1

[Elm Park Kid]

I think the general point is that it's impossible for an 'average' Championship size team to compete effectively in the league without running at a loss. Basically it validates SJM and ends any speculation that he was creaming money off the top.

[Hoop Blah]

Someone somewhere on this message thread said that SJM had always ensured we werent the highest spenders (or something to that effect) - so the point I was making was that perhaps that remain true under SJMs stewardship, and the floodgates were opened when AZ took over

But TSI didn't take over until May.

The only real uplift during that financial year was Roberts, a couple of loan signings, and Kebe signing the contract that was already on offer to him before TSI got involved.

[Hoop Blah]

The point is that you only pay it if you're successful and pick up a premiership windfall anyway as opposed to committing yourself to a crippling wage budget regardless like Leicester. The fact that Leicester aside its the 3 promoted sides that occupy the other top spots suggest that it is a pretty significant amount which makes the graph a bit skewered. I seem to recall the wage bill in 05/06 was significantly higher than the previous season. Even allowing for an increased expenditure that summer its the significance of win bonuses,promotion,winning the championship etc. I reckon promotion made a difference of about 5 or 6 places on that graph. That would prtobably leave us around 8th as far as a weekly wage bill is concerned which is probably about right.

I remember a similiar conversation a couple of years back with regards to Blackpool who it was perceived had been promoted on a shoestring budget but when the wage figures for the year were released ended up as the top 5 payers in the division.

I guess the other factor to consider is that if you are contending in January then clubs are more likely to push the boat out in that transfer window as the risk/reward factor changes significantly.

I don't disagree that success ends in a higher wage bill than if the club had failed, that goes without saying, but we're not this low budget operation that everyone likes to portray us as.

Even when we got relegated from the Premier League our wages, although at the bottom end, were only a few off million those that were mid table so I think we must be very competitive within our 'market' and the performance related pay is going to be a factor in attracting players.

As or 05/06, I have in my head that I was told the bonus was something like £50k a man for winning promotion (it may even have been £15k, but that sounds far too low). The players kicked off that it wasn't enough but totally forgot that it was the scheme they signed up for at the start of the season.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

I heard of a one million bonus on Promotion for one person at the club in 2006.

And though would be the following season didnt the managers money double ?

[SydenhamRoyal]

Someone somewhere on this message thread said that SJM had always ensured we werent the highest spenders (or something to that effect) - so the point I was making was that perhaps that remain true under SJMs stewardship, and the floodgates were opened when AZ took over

But TSI didn't take over until May.

The only real uplift during that financial year was Roberts, a couple of loan signings, and Kebe signing the contract that was already on offer to him before TSI got involved.

TSI underwrote all the dealings in January

[SCIAG]

No, I don't think they did.

And we won the league.

There's been significant comment on here and everywhere else that McDermott overachieved and performed miracles in getting us promoted. Our budget was one of the top in the league and we finished marginally better than the rest.

Oh, those "McDermott worshippers". I retract my comments. I tend to think of those people as player-bashers, not McDermott's fans, largely because they're the same people who were slagging off McDermott 18 months ago. But yes, I agree with you. Don't get me wrong, I think McDermott did a great job, but we did have one of, if not the best squad in the league last season. I remember saying the squad was better than people were saying after we lost to Watford and being shot down.

[Westwood52]

The reality is that big wages mean better players (when they can be bothered)-better players mean more points.

Given that Clubs (once they have a decent ground)-should run at a small profit/small loss-if I was a Birmingham or Wet Sham fan I would be asking where the "excess" money is going.

When does the financial fair play rules kick in ? Clearly Man City and Chelsea have a huge problem when this does start-that said they are the two best teams in the Prem-Man U will probably win the league because those two got distracted (Ballotelli/Mancini and Lampard/Terry/Benitez)-they have on the evidence of the past week a far better playing squad than Man U(as they have spent more money)-who rely almost solely on Carrick in midfield.

[Hoop Blah]

Someone somewhere on this message thread said that SJM had always ensured we werent the highest spenders (or something to that effect) - so the point I was making was that perhaps that remain true under SJMs stewardship, and the floodgates were opened when AZ took over

But TSI didn't take over until May.

The only real uplift during that financial year was Roberts, a couple of loan signings, and Kebe signing the contract that was already on offer to him before TSI got involved.

TSI underwrote all the dealings in January

They may well have done, but the actual uplift is minimal so you're point about splitting out the wage bill before and after January is pretty irrelevant, especially as probably a third of the uplift (the Kebe contract) was already on offer before TSI underwrote the Roberts signing and the loans of Mullins and Cywka (which might actually have been a very short term perm signing now I think about it).

[SydenhamRoyal]

TSI underwrote all the dealings in January[/quote]

They may well have done, but the actual uplift is minimal so you're point about splitting out the wage bill before and after January is pretty irrelevant, especially as probably a third of the uplift (the Kebe contract) was already on offer before TSI underwrote the Roberts signing and the loans of Mullins and Cywka (which might actually have been a very short term perm signing now I think about it).[/quote]

I wouldnt have thought it was minimal - Roberts was on at least 2.5 times as much as the next most expensive player; that alone would have dropped us below Birmingham in the wages league table; Kebe's contract no doubt included a pay rise etc. Whilst i agree it wouldnt have put us down to 24th in the list, the shift of at least a place, and possibly more is not "irrelevant".

[Hoop Blah]

Every club, even Reading following 'the Reading Way' makes signings in the January window to help the rest of the season. The only one that was significantly different to our normal way of doing things was Roberts.

His wages for 5 months would've been £5-600k max (that's £30k per week which I think is a reasonable guess). In the grand scheme of things I'd say that's a pretty minimal uplift.

[Ian Royal]

Every club, even Reading following 'the Reading Way' makes signings in the January window to help the rest of the season. The only one that was significantly different to our normal way of doing things was Roberts.

His wages for 5 months would've been £5-600k max (that's £30k per week which I think is a reasonable guess). In the grand scheme of things I'd say that's a pretty minimal uplift.

Do we have the previous year's wage bill around anywhere. That should give a reasonable indication of the difference promotion and Roberts actually made...

EDIT: found something with a few previous years...

2009 - £27.7m
2010 - £20.1m
2011 - £??.?m
2012 - £27m

That suggests to me that promotion (and Roberts signing) may well have increased our wage spending by about £5m - £9m. Which would certainly be significant.