The Summer clearout / Coming in thread. Updated 27/8

[Svlad Cjelli]

Depends how many injuries/dressing room fallouts you have.

[brendywendy]

My post was in reply to Zac who surmised that the current "nil investment" model only came about because, having been there, SJM didn't fancy the PL too much.

Which probably isn't too far from the truth, once you factor in the economic climate and Madejski's reduced wealth.

That his stated aim was for the club to be self-sufficient doesn't have a lot to do with it. If that was the main driver he would've implemented it years ago.

but its only now, after building the club, gaining profile, fanbase, and success along the way, that you can sustainably do that, and still be a successful football club.
he didnt do it before the prem as it would have meant we still yo yod between 2nd/3rd tier, no one would have heard of us, no one would want to choose us as a club, and the gates would still be 8-12k a week, meaning we would bring in even less money,meaning we couldnt afford to get/ keep any good players.

[brendywendy]

Which is healthier, Big Squad which adds up to high wages or small squad with lots of expensive players?

isnt it also a result of the cheap punt/academy approach. you cannot sustain that if you only pick from 20 players, cos your hit rate just cannot be high enough to sustain a good team.
with a squad of 35 its possible.

[Hoop Blah]

Which is healthier, Big Squad which adds up to high wages or small squad with lots of expensive players?

Too many if's an but's to say really. I'd prefer a smaller squad with a couple of extra 'match winners' and less non-playing squad types if it were me though.

Ever since we went up to the Premier League I think we've carried a few too many deadweights in the squad. We bought in players who were 5th and 6th choices in their position and took too many cheap gambles hoping to unearth another gem or two like Doyle.

There was very little point in buying the likes of Bennett, Sodje, Mooney etc when we had the other players in the squad.

You have to balance that with having enough players to cover injuries but I think we were too reluctant to trust our youngsters to cover serious gaps or even to playing people out of position (like a Tabb or Gunnarsson have done).

In the Championship it's a bit easier to run with a smaller squad because you can use emergency loans to supplement your squad and also because the kids should be more capable of stepping in at the lower level.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Which is healthier, Big Squad which adds up to high wages or small squad with lots of expensive players?

isnt it also a result of the cheap punt/academy approach. you cannot sustain that if you only pick from 20 players, cos your hit rate just cannot be high enough to sustain a good team.
with a squad of 35 its possible.

But you risk players not being happy because they don't get to play. We're lucky in that we have a young squad with lots of kids - so that does reduce the costs and lowers the expectation to play of others.

[Vision]

Depends really because it's my general understanding that it's wages that have gone up far higher than transfer fees, but fans still just look at the bottom line of how much has gone in/out in transfer fees.

Is it any coincidence that the fair play rules throughout Europe are being brought in to combat wages rather then large transfer fees?

A player signed on £10k a week is going to cost the club over half a million pounds a season, that's not including bonuses, signing on fees, agent fees, insurance etc etc. Even having 10 players on this figure would then cost the club £5 million. Add another 10 players on half of that and it's £7.5m a year. Off the top of my head you'd think that McAnuff, Mills, Federici, Tabb, Long, Hunt, Kebe, Griffin, Harte and Howard would all be on over £10k with Gunnarsson, M Williams, Cummings, Church, Manset, Morrison, Pearce, McCarthy, Hamer, Karacan and a host more on that £5k level.

The club may have spent £800k on the likes of Caskey, Murty and Forster in the tier below 10 years ago, but the net cost of signing an £800k player now is likely to be far far higher given the way wages have gone up.

Caskey was bought while we were in Tier 2 but your point is a good one.

It always makes me spit feathers when I see TV pundits talk about how managers have "spent nothing" when they're merely talking about transfer fees and completely ignoring wages.

That said we still spent way over what would be considered prudent given our income even allowing for ITV Digital. I'd even go so far as to say that the current excessive wage bill point is probably true mainly for Championship and Premiership wages.

With the odd exception I'd suggest that most 3rd and 4th tier clubs have been forced to be more prudent now on the wage front than they were at the point ITV digital collapsed in 2002.

The other point worth mentioning is that generally speaking players are signed on shorter term deals now (again especially in the lower leagues) Not only did we sign players on large fees at that time we also signed them up to long term deals which I dont think would necessarily be the norm for a 3rd/4th tier team now.I suspect that was the major fall-out of the collapse in that they still had long term contracts to honour without the income. I always remember an interview with Neil Smith around that time and he was fully aware how lucky he was to be getting what he was at the time and that he was pretty sure that players at his level wouldnt get anywhere near that in the future.

[Svlad Cjelli]

I'll just post this here so those talking about "investment" can see it :

Tue 16th Nov 2010 | Money & Finance

Ipswich Town Football Club have announced a loss of just over £14million for the 12 months to June 2010, in their latest accounts released today.

According to the accounts the club's wage bill increased to over £17m, a 108 per cent of annual turnover, which stood at £15.8m.

The precise loss on ordinary activities before taxation was £14.176m, as opposed to £12.674m from 12 months ago.

Commercial profit at Portman Road was down by approximately £0.25m during 2009-10, in comparison to 2008-09, with a profit of £1.87m as against £2.16m.

Turnover increased from £14.7m in 2008-09, which was Marcus Evans’ first full year as owner, to £15.8m, due primarily to additional income from the Football League.

Gate receipts were down from £6.702m to £6.362m, despite an increase in ticket sales due to Town’s extended Carling Cup run, coupled with a lucrative FA Cup fourth round tie at Chelsea, during the 2008-09 campaign.

During the last financial year, the Club purchased six players at a total cost of £7.2m, and sold four players for proceeds of £1.1m.

Since the end of the financial year, a further £0.8m has been committed on transfer fees, and £3.3m accrued from the sale of players.

The additional costs of players’ wages, due to the influx of new players during the summer of 2009, led to the Club’s direct costs rising from £18.7m to £19.4m.

[ZacNaloen]

Which is healthier, Big Squad which adds up to high wages or small squad with lots of expensive players?

isnt it also a result of the cheap punt/academy approach. you cannot sustain that if you only pick from 20 players, cos your hit rate just cannot be high enough to sustain a good team.
with a squad of 35 its possible.

But you risk players not being happy because they don't get to play. We're lucky in that we have a young squad with lots of kids - so that does reduce the costs and lowers the expectation to play of others.

We have what, two players per position more or less and then a gaggle of recently promoted academy players?

[Tails]

It seems apparent to me that Madejski's investment has been somewhat in contrast to others. We had gone for tangible assets [Stadium/Hotel/Training/Academy] before 'investing'/'buying' players with increased wages.

We can now temper large investment [such as Legs] with implementation of home-grown players [Such as McCarthy]. Its the most viable option and its paying off considering the context of where we were pre-Madejski days.

[Hoop Blah]

he didnt do it before the prem as it would have meant we still yo yod between 2nd/3rd tier, no one would have heard of us, no one would want to choose us as a club, and the gates would still be 8-12k a week, meaning we would bring in even less money,meaning we couldnt afford to get/ keep any good players.

So we ran at a loss because we were chasing higher glories then?

It's almost impossible to sustain a club at any level in the professional game without making a loss and having external investment to support it. We could've just as easily tried to 'cut our cloth' 6 or 7 years ago and been in the same position as we are now but we didn't, we spent a load of money (more than we had coming in) in order to try and go up.

[Svlad Cjelli]

he didnt do it before the prem as it would have meant we still yo yod between 2nd/3rd tier, no one would have heard of us, no one would want to choose us as a club, and the gates would still be 8-12k a week, meaning we would bring in even less money,meaning we couldnt afford to get/ keep any good players.

So we ran at a loss because we were chasing higher glories then?

It's almost impossible to sustain a club at any level in the professional game without making a loss and having external investment to support it. We could've just as easily tried to 'cut our cloth' 6 or 7 years ago and been in the same position as we are now but we didn't, we spent a load of money (more than we had coming in) in order to try and go up.

The differences between then and now are that :

- it takes much less to be a big spender in Tier 3 than in Tier 2
- it was essential to the overall business to be in Tier 2
- JM had a lot more liquitity to play with then - he doesn't now.

[brendywendy]

There was very little point in buying the likes of Bennett, Sodje, Mooney etc when we had the other players in the squad.

but theyre all low cost gambles- unless you believe that mooney was being payed 15k a week. if they come off we make a million or two. if they dont, pfft.

tbf i think if anything our transfer forays into the >1M<5M area of the market have shown that at that level you are gambling almost as much, & with a lower hit rate.
and even at that low level it would start costing the club alot of money more than we can afford.

if anything "caused" madejski to reassess what was required financially it was the experiences with buying players like fae/halford etc
the experiences of trying to sign players such as mensah/scott brown
and even the experiences of trying to get loyalty out of players , like hunt and shorey.

if anything, it was those attempts to grow as a squad, for big money, which all failed that really made him rethink. and you can see why.
once you go past a certain point, the players a club like us can afford/attract are no longer a viable gamble in terms of cost/liklihood of success.
purely looking at the evidence within our own club.

[brendywendy]

he didnt do it before the prem as it would have meant we still yo yod between 2nd/3rd tier, no one would have heard of us, no one would want to choose us as a club, and the gates would still be 8-12k a week, meaning we would bring in even less money,meaning we couldnt afford to get/ keep any good players.

So we ran at a loss because we were chasing higher glories then?

It's almost impossible to sustain a club at any level in the professional game without making a loss and having external investment to support it. We could've just as easily tried to 'cut our cloth' 6 or 7 years ago and been in the same position as we are now but we didn't, we spent a load of money (more than we had coming in) in order to try and go up.

its his aim- its aspirational-it means that we are aiming to get there some time in the future, and will do what was requried to get to achieve that aim.

& imo it would be impossible for us to ever be self sustainable without having been to the prem at least once, therefore he had to support us financially up till that point, which we subsequently got to.

imo if wed cut our cloth in the 3rd tier- it became even less likely that wed ever get out- and virtually impossible wed ever have got to the prem.
then we wouldnt have been able to bring in such promising youth players which then enable our academy to bare fruit and in turn enable our self sufficiency.

i think its possible to have the aim of making us self sufficient while still spending more money than we earn to get us to that point

i do agree that the cut off point is arbitrary, and based purely on JMs opinion of when we have reached a level where the model is sustainable and successful.

[Vision]

he didnt do it before the prem as it would have meant we still yo yod between 2nd/3rd tier, no one would have heard of us, no one would want to choose us as a club, and the gates would still be 8-12k a week, meaning we would bring in even less money,meaning we couldnt afford to get/ keep any good players.

So we ran at a loss because we were chasing higher glories then?

It's almost impossible to sustain a club at any level in the professional game without making a loss and having external investment to support it. We could've just as easily tried to 'cut our cloth' 6 or 7 years ago and been in the same position as we are now but we didn't, we spent a load of money (more than we had coming in) in order to try and go up.

The differences between then and now are that :

- it takes much less to be a big spender in Tier 3 than in Tier 2
- it was essential to the overall business to be in Tier 2
- JM had a lot more liquitity to play with then - he doesn't now.

All valid points but it doesn't change the fact that as a club we were spending far more than we were making in an attempt to operate at a higher level. Of course we had JM to bail us out with loans at rates far better than we'd get elsewhere but its not far off the sort of approach/gamble that we currently criticise other clubs for.
I often wonder what might've happened had the current recession kicked in around 2000 and we found ourselves as a struggling tier 3 club in a 1/3rd full shiny new stadium and JM with his current level of liquidity.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Agreed, but to a certain extent it was more necessary because staying in Tier 3 it would be impossible to be self-sustaining, which is the ultimate aim.

In Tier 2 it's a lot easier to be self-sustaining. What is difficult is to be self-sustaining *AND* competitive.

[No Hoops]

with his current level of liquidity.

I suspect he's got a few bob tucked away somewhere other than a building site and a couple of Hotels.

[Vision]

Agreed, but to a certain extent it was more necessary because staying in Tier 3 it would be impossible to be self-sustaining, which is the ultimate aim.

In Tier 2 it's a lot easier to be self-sustaining. What is difficult is to be self-sustaining *AND* competitive.

Indeed. Which is why I'm very happy with what we've acheived since being relegated and how we've gone about it (well the last 18 months at least). To be competitive in this division 3 seasons after relegation from the Premiership would fly in the face of what happens at most clubs. Its a testament to our approach I think.

Timing is everything mind you.

When we got promoted in 2002 the difference in TV revenue (ITV Digital) would have gone from something cc 200k a year to over £2m I think. Its why JM was so vocal in his anger at the situation. He'd gambled/invested to get there only to find the planned increased TV revenue disappear.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Agreed, but to a certain extent it was more necessary because staying in Tier 3 it would be impossible to be self-sustaining, which is the ultimate aim.

In Tier 2 it's a lot easier to be self-sustaining. What is difficult is to be self-sustaining *AND* competitive.

Indeed. Which is why I'm very happy with what we've acheived since being relegated and how we've gone about it (well the last 18 months at least). To be competitive in this division 3 seasons after relegation from the Premiership would fly in the face of what happens at most clubs. Its a testament to our approach I think.

Timing is everything mind you.

When we got promoted in 2002 the difference in TV revenue (ITV Digital) would have gone from something cc 200k a year to over £2m I think. Its why JM was so vocal in his anger at the situation. He'd gambled/invested to get there only to find the planned increased TV revenue disappear.

Yes, but we were lucky that we couldn't budget on getting ITV Digital money until after we'd been promoted -whereas most other Tier 2 clubs were budgeting on it. So it actually hit us when we were promoted less than most other clubs.

[Mr Angry]

I'll just post this here so those talking about "investment" can see it :

Tue 16th Nov 2010 | Money & Finance

Ipswich Town Football Club have announced a loss of just over £14million for the 12 months to June 2010, in their latest accounts released today.

According to the accounts the club's wage bill increased to over £17m, a 108 per cent of annual turnover, which stood at £15.8m.

The precise loss on ordinary activities before taxation was £14.176m, as opposed to £12.674m from 12 months ago.

Commercial profit at Portman Road was down by approximately £0.25m during 2009-10, in comparison to 2008-09, with a profit of £1.87m as against £2.16m.

Turnover increased from £14.7m in 2008-09, which was Marcus Evans’ first full year as owner, to £15.8m, due primarily to additional income from the Football League.

Gate receipts were down from £6.702m to £6.362m, despite an increase in ticket sales due to Town’s extended Carling Cup run, coupled with a lucrative FA Cup fourth round tie at Chelsea, during the 2008-09 campaign.

During the last financial year, the Club purchased six players at a total cost of £7.2m, and sold four players for proceeds of £1.1m.

Since the end of the financial year, a further £0.8m has been committed on transfer fees, and £3.3m accrued from the sale of players.

The additional costs of players’ wages, due to the influx of new players during the summer of 2009, led to the Club’s direct costs rising from £18.7m to £19.4m.

And yet, Ipswich have been this Summer's front runner for new signings; Chopra, although the fee was "only" £1.5M will be on huge wages for this level; add a significant signing on fee and thats a major additional liability on the books. Of course, they could clear the loss by selling Conor Wickham..... how much does the perceived value of a player play in the accounts SC??

[Svlad Cjelli]

Depends what you can get the auditors to agree to. They're capital assets, but I think they depreciate very quickly - just over the length of their remaining contract.