Adams budget league table

Taken from the farm

Graham Clark Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018

Clubs in the League 1 and League 2 operate within a Spending Constraint framework termed Salary Cost Management Protocol (SMCP). SCMP limits spending on player wages to a percentage of club Turnover. In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - in League 2, the limit is 55%. There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees.

Turnover includes match-day Income, commercial Income (such as sponsorship) including hospitality/banqueting income, TV revenue and any 'merit payments' based on league position
However the Football League use a broader definition of Turnover for clubs in Leagues 1 and 2. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity.

Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. As a result in League 1 and League 2, an owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in the Championship or Premiership.

That probably explains why the likes of Andy Pilley at Fleetwood, our opponents tomorrow, can put £10m into his club, as owner, without breaking the FFP rules.

Derek Adams has ventured that last season Argyle had the fifth lowest playing budget. That must imply that the EFL must publish compliance with the SCMP for League 1 and 2 clubs at some time during or after the season. A minority of Clubs in League 1, including Argyle, only publish abbreviated accounts (legitimately) which often exclude turnover figures. In fact Argyle are perhaps the only Club that publish their accounts as a 31st December year end as opposed to a season's end in May or June. This was because of the link to the rest of James Brent's companies which had the same accounting date.

Perhaps it is an appropriate time for the Club to re-evaluate its accounting practices and have a end of season accounting date which puts it in line with all the other EFL clubs. Perhaps more information other than that legally required for abbreviated accounts could also be published. Most other League 1 clubs do, including wages and turnover figures to enable proper comparisons albeit historic.

Perhaps a question for Simon Hallett at the Fans Forum on on 6th December?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Fifth lowest budget dispite over ten thousand fans per game !! year on year bullshit lapped up by the gratefuls [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'sthemoneygone?

Confirms what we all pretty much new and the gratefuls have been keen to deny under the Brentmare.

Les Miserable wrote:

Confirms what we all pretty much new and the gratefuls have been keen to deny under the Brentmare.

Yep bhey, year on year pisstake on the playing budget which was predictably lapped up by the dribblers.
I wonder how much Brent made out of his involvement with Argo ?

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

Confirms what we all pretty much new and the gratefuls have been keen to deny under the Brentmare.

Yep bhey, year on year pisstake on the playing budget which was predictably lapped up by the dribblers.
I wonder how much Brent made out of his involvement with Argo ?

Probably never get to the bottom of his 'pass the parcel' group accounting - always rabbit warrens for a reason!!

Top 5 attendances bottom 5 budget.....We're Plimuff Argo, we're doin our best

It's almost as if SMCP/FFP has been designed at our level to protect, give a boost it you prefer, to proper big clubs that find themselves in a bit of a jam. Complete mess-ups ala Portsmouth take a bit longer but still works for them in the end.

There aren't that many sugar barons or fools spunking money away on lower league football dreams to prevent some sort of natural order occuring over time. Even allowing for the stars aligning, finding a couple of wee gems, some luck with transfers or good ol' fashioned coaching enabling a diddy club to rise up there is a system in place whereby five figure gates give Argyle an advantage over a huge swathe of the division. Even if the so-called Argyle premium paid for enticing players west actually exists it can't level it out that much.

Those of us more advanced in years will see us as a club that bounce between the middle divisions, there will soon be a generation combined with a swathe of villagers that will be happy with us bing-bonging back and forth through the bottom two.

That we seem incapable or unwilling of doing better is quite frankly embarrassing. Or rubbish. Embarassing, rubbish and disgraceful. It's all of them.

Nools had his feathers ruffled by GC's reappearance,

"I've never understood this anoraky 'We want to see the full accounts' style of supporting the club.

It seems as if the 'intelligentia' are hung up about it."

Well have no transparency here thank you! Fecking turncoat, when Brent slithered up we were all promised more transparency and Jimmy was hailed as a different kind of owner. It then turned out that Brent was not that kind of owner at all so the narrative has changed to "trust in Brent" and question nothing or you'll be portrayed as a freak. As GC points out Hallett has a chance to change things now. One thing he could change is Brents December 31 accounting date, which was used to coincide with Brents other businesses, Hallett could change that to end of season which would make the accounts make more sense it will be telling whether he does or not.

Just confirms the ownership choose not to support the club financially to any great degree.

It's sad when TUFC, three leagues lower probably get more money from their owner than PAFC do

Les Miserable wrote:

Top 5 attendances bottom 5 budget.....We're Plimuff Argo, we're doin our best

Yep it stinks, but at least we got a club to support and Jimmy's always very pleasant to the plebs.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

Top 5 attendances bottom 5 budget.....We're Plimuff Argo, we're doin our best

Yep it stinks, but at least we got a club to support and Jimmy's always very pleasant to the plebs.

his daughters got some nice ponies as well .

Grovehill wrote:

Just confirms the ownership choose not to support the club financially to any great degree.

It's sad when TUFC, three leagues lower probably get more money from their owner than PAFC do

Careful we will be told to piss off and support the turks next.....

Andy Holt, chairman of Accrington, has just said on Football Focus that they have the joint lowest budget in our division along with Wycombe. No surprise there of course.

He states they turnover around £2.5-3 million. They do fully own their ground.

It's so frustrating that a club that attracts a couple of thousand and brings in that amount is in such a better place than us.

Open and honest too, actually why can't our owners be like that.

So, where has the money gone? It's not gone on wages or transfer fees (only paid £15k in fees according to the ex Chief Scout)

I can't think of any costs that Argyle have that would not be similar to other Clubs in the Division, and as the ground purchase and development is covered by Director loans, that won't be included in the calculations (as per Graham Clark's comments)

So, are the Directors, in effect, using the football Club as a savings account--i.e. putting in a lump sum to purchase the ground etc. then pocketing the interest payments as their "profit"

This could be viewed as a smart move or a pi** take, depending on your point of view. Loan your own business money and pocket the interest payments while the loan is used to increase the value of your business.

Kerrching, everyone's a winner --well not the fans or the football club, obviously, but everyone on the Board

Grovehill wrote:

So, where has the money gone? It's not gone on wages or transfer fees (only paid £15k in fees according to the ex Chief Scout)

I can't think of any costs that Argyle have that would not be similar to other Clubs in the Division, and as the ground purchase and development is covered by Director loans, that won't be included in the calculations (as per Graham Clark's comments)

So, are the Directors, in effect, using the football Club as a savings account--i.e. putting in a lump sum to purchase the ground etc. then pocketing the interest payments as their "profit"

This could be viewed as a smart move or a pi** take, depending on your point of view. Loan your own business money and pocket the interest payments while the loan is used to increase the value of your business.

Kerrching, everyone's a winner --well not the fans or the football club, obviously, but everyone on the Board

Can see that and strange how the 2 main shareholders have spent their whole business life learning how to do such magic tricks - nothing is ever what it seems at the club, gullible masses the likes of which astound me in their numbers, easily pleased. In 50+years this will be the first I'll probably not visit HP.

The mank over has gone over budget and funds are being diverted from the playing squad and turnstile operators to pay for the shortfall. It seems obvious to me.

I asked about the "Budget League" at a Fans Forum a while back.

The answer went something like this:

"All clubs have to submit projected income and expenditure budgets to the FL so that their compliance with Salary Cap Management Protocol can be assessed. At the end of each season the figures are circulated between the clubs in the division for further scrutiny.

So while we never know what clubs are spending this season we do know what they spent in the last and we know what we will spend. So while it is all guesswork we do have an idea as to where we will fit in and while we will never be near Blackburn (in our division at the time) we do know we are comfortably mid-table."

So the truth is: nobody knows for sure at any given time.

It is probably fair that Blackburn has been replaced by Sunderland as the Big Spenders this season. Accrington and Wycombe will both know what each spent last season and in both cases it isn't likely to be much in the great sheme of things. And so on. But essentially it is all guesswork.

And in many respects it is an irrelevance anyway. What I would like to know is how near the SCMP limit we are and, if we are not near it, then where does the rest of the money go?

Nor do I buy into this being difficult in any way.

This club, like every other, will know what it had to spend on other costs (rent, rates. mortgage, water, electric, gas, maintenance, police, non-playing staff etc) last season and those costs will be broadly similar in the next season once a little is allowed for inflation.

Income is more volatile but the money coming in from sponsorship, shirt sales, the FL and so on will always be broadly predictable so where there is an unexpected boost (a lucrative cup run or a transfer fee etc) then subtract that. Then set the budget at 75% of what remains to allow for a slight drop just in case and then re-assess halfway through the year to see where that 80% has left any leeway for later investment.

Argyle is one of many clubs that seem to think that the complexities involved are mysterious and unfathomable but they aren't. Not when it comes down to it.

But what baffles me more than anything about all of this is why/how that "Budget League Table" has never been leaked by any club in any division anywhere so that we can see the real figures instead of having to rely on something akin to Kremlinology to get anywhere near the truth.

Again it should be easy to read between the lines. Either we are massively under performing with an adequate budget or we have a shite budget and we are where that usually gets you. You'd have to ignore a lot of evidence to assume the first scenario.

We know what Jimmy is, we will find out about Hallets ambitions for the club after the transfer window has shut.

This probably links into why DA seems bombproof. If his job was up for grabs, most applicants would have a fair idea of where PAFC are in terms of spending v income (from their contacts at other clubs etc)
When they're told at interview about the budget they'd have to work with, they'd know money isn't being made available to the football side even though the club is making it.

The big worry budget-wise is obviously the cost of repainting and preserving the obstructive pillars for the next 30 years.

God knows what the budget for that is but we all know the lack of planning permission means the project has now ground to a halt and we all know that delaying a building project increases costs.

And we all know costs have to met and we all know the board is unlikely to pay them out of their pockets.

And we all know that that only leaves either more borrowing or diverting club income.

And we all know that means fewer players, cheaper players, worse players and a worse team than we might otherwise have had.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The big worry budget-wise is obviously the cost of repainting and preserving the obstructive pillars for the next 30 years.

God knows what the budget for that is but we all know the lack of planning permission means the project has now ground to a halt and we all know that delaying a building project increases costs.

And we all know costs have to met and we all know the board is unlikely to pay them out of their pockets.

And we all know that that only leaves either more borrowing or diverting club income.

And we all know that means fewer players, cheaper players, worse players and a worse team than we might otherwise have had.

All good concerns for the AFT question the club about...

Have you (the AFT) called for an emergency meeting?

Didn't Brent extend an offer to you personally to meet him and discuss anything you wanted? Why are you not taking him up on it?

I seem to recall SH commenting on finances just as he was about to become majority shareholder.

When asked about unbudgeted income and where it has been spent, I believe his response was along the lines of,' The training ground....the new grandstand roof ? and wait for it,,,,,,,, day to day running expenses.'

Lots of tea and biscuits for the board room, feckin lorry fulls of custard creams and bourbons.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

Confirms what we all pretty much new and the gratefuls have been keen to deny under the Brentmare.

Yep bhey, year on year pisstake on the playing budget which was predictably lapped up by the dribblers.
I wonder how much Brent made out of his involvement with Argo ?

Yep SEVEN years of Brent pisstaking has come to this, even the relegation battle Oxford game last time out attracted 10k plus so where is the money going?
Would be nice to get an answer from BRENT/HALLET!