Clyde1998YorkshireRoyal99 I think it relates to the wage bill, it was at just over £25m for last season where it needed to be around £21.5m as agreed in the Business Plan.
The fact we've still posted losses of £17.3m, including the £8m sale of Olise, is not good either.
Not only that but I don't know how we will have managed to get our wage bill down by nearly £10m for the year this season either considering we haven't lost that many big earners other than Swift.
I don't think anyone's picked up on this point, but the wages in the business plan relate to player wages specifically whereas the wages in the accounts cover all salaried staff at the club (including players, coaches, scouts, directors, ticket office, club shop, catering, etc).
I'm not sure if the business plan wage limit includes social security or pension costs incurred by the club though. If social security and pension costs aren't included as part of the business plan, our total salary expenditure (for all employees) is £22.4m. The business plan limit was £21.1m for player wages, so £1.3m would have to go to non-playing staff to comply.
There were 210 non-playing staff shown in the accounts, so they would have to be paid an average of £6.2k p/a (or greater) to take us below £21.1m wages for the playing staff. Without matchday staff and government training scheme employees, that would mean an average of £9.7k p/a. It's almost certain our playing costs were below £21.1m, once discounting social security and pensions.
If social security and pension costs are included, then (excluding matchday and training scheme employees), it's an average of £31.5k p/a (or greater) to take us below the limit; £4.2m total. That would make it less clear whether our player wages fall below the £21.1m threshold from the accounts alone, but is certainly possible.
Thanks for clarifying - so it seems like it won't be that then. If there is to be a punishment, it seems like it's going to be pretty close to the line either way.