Brent laments Argyle budget

Linky thingy

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

WTF does he mean?

Loads of money, but he can't spend it is how I read that.

The "legacy" equates to the "staff debt"?

If so, and we have cash available, then pay it off more quickly!

Or have I completely misinterpreted the article?

The debts we owe are the legacy of the M7. Brent is saying we have one of the best financial streams in the League, but we are using that to pay debt, and also the club are still under observation/probation in the football league so heavy spending would make them concerned. We need to hurry up and pay off these debts, because climbing back to where we were needs to be done quickly before we just turn into another average league 2 club. If we stay up I expect a promotion push next season. You could be saying we should be looking to be 'stable' and 'sustainable' after being in administration but remember we have proved we can do that in the championship and we did so for some time before the board got greedy and cared about nothing but the world cup and property development. There is money in the kitty, use it.

My interpretation would be that Argyle are still paying high wage earners like Simon Walton and Damien Johnson championship wages,thus swallowing up a fair portion of the salary capped budget.As a matter of interest,who actually sets the wage cap figure at the start of the season and what methodolgy is used? It must be based on some tangible figure but who can accurately predict what a clubs turnover will be at the start of a season? Or is estimated on a monthly/rolling basis? Just thinking of a scenario whereby Argyle start well next season and begin to get crowds of say 9000,2500 above the breakeven figure.Would they actually be able to spend the extra money accrued from the increased crowds or would they still be obliged to keep within the budget specified at the start of the season? Interesting.

My understanding of the wage cap is that it is not legally enforceable and is carried out on a voluntary basis. However, the FL are entitled to view club's accounts and do so if a club breaks the voluntary wage cap. I'm not saying that the wage cap should be compromised but I'm quite sure that if a more popular club was in our position there would be more flexibility.

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

The "legacy" equates to the "staff debt"?

If so, and we have cash available, then pay it off more quickly!

Or have I completely misinterpreted the article?

I think the article is almost intentionally left open to individual interpretation. If it isn't, then it's a piss-poor piece.

Gob has it right about the wage cap. Nothing is 'set in stone' in terms of the League enforcing anything.

Playing the wage cap card, is very much a flag of convenience that can be rolled out whenever Brent feels like it.

Surely the CP people around James Brent could have told him about the wage cap.... that's what they're there for isn't it ?

Funnily enough, I was going to raise this very issue today, as the figures involved in the playing budget would open up a bit more of the club purchase figures and who might have got paid what.
Regardless of Damien Johson etc, I would like an indication from the club that the player debt (£3.5m appx apparently at the time of sale) was treated as a capital sum or an ongoing current ependiture. If it is a current expenditure, then the League have every right to insist the whole 14% +7% paid out on completion is taken against the 55% ceilling. And next year they have every right to take the next 7% against the wage cap limit. By the Duckworth Lewis Fag packet method, I reckon a season's turnover in L2, including sponsors etc, would be say £3.5m. That allows £1.8m roughly for wages. Now if we have to add on 7% of £3.5m wages debt every season, that means in effect we are restricted by a further 250K which means in effect we can only spend appx 45 to 47% of turnover on players actully playing.

That disadvntage would also be with us for years, but no one seems interested in talking about WHY that legacy needed to be so big when JB was the only game in town. He was in a strong position when dealing with the secured creditors, surely.. To be fair to Brent, I'm sure Todd et al would have been playing hardball by threatening to get some sort of return on their money by selling the ground to the highest bidder and liquidating the club, but nevertheless, I was shocked how little of the sale price (that nobody wants to divulge /) actually seemed allocated to paying off the employees unpaid wages in a lump sum, from which one can only assume more went to undeserving secured creditors.

As it is, we all have heard how easy it could be to get around that wage cap problem anyway ....hmmmmmm.

Correct me if im wrong but the wage cap is linked to income then why cant brent get one of his companies to become a very generous sponsor which would intern increase are income and then allow us a higher wage bill.

lawnmowerman wrote:

Correct me if im wrong but the wage cap is linked to income then why cant brent get one of his companies to become a very generous sponsor which would intern increase are income and then allow us a higher wage bill.

A great idea but Mr Brent can huff and puff all he likes and blow smoke but he is'nt going to spend any money he doesn't have to.

There's two ways around the wage cap problem that other clubs use and as said, sponsorship is one. The other way clubs are bridging the issue is with larger then usual signing on fees.

If Brent's has the will to get around the problem he can easily achieve it, I'm not so sure he's all that bothered though and as Pirate's figures indicate, there seems to be some confusion.

Can't wait for Freathy's take on this!

One of the big things that Brent pushed at the Guildhall meeting was "integrity, honesty & so on" (can't remember the full mantra). Good for him! There may be "ways to get around all this" but I'm for integrity, honesty etc. I think in the not so distant future the edifice of dodgy dealings, sugar-daddies and the bubble of Premiership football will run aground. When that happens, there will be many more clubs ion our recent position. I hope Brent's stance at that point will be shown to be the right one. As long as we don't get relegated abloodygain!

I don't understand pp's figures. I'm not a numbers man. (Or as my daughters say to me ' I don't count ). I'll go away with something bigger than a fag-packet and have a look. And what on earth is the Vera Duckworth method!? Sounds like a way of not getting pregnant whilst watching tv soaps.

Quite right to Knecht, the problem being that professional football and integrity are not known for their compatibility.

GOB wrote:

There's two ways around the wage cap problem that other clubs use and as said, sponsorship is one. The other way clubs are bridging the issue is with larger then usual signing on fees.

If Brent's has the will to get around the problem he can easily achieve it, I'm not so sure he's all that bothered though and as Pirate's figures indicate, there seems to be some confusion.

I think "The challenge is we have a number of bullets and we have to fire them very carefully so that is what we'll do. The good thing about League Two is people don't pay huge transfer fees so the issue for us is more wage cap than transfer-driven. "

Is a small hint that we could sign another couple of players, but only for the right targets.


I 100% agree with the way he is trying to run the club, all clubs in my eyes from the prem to L2 should have a wage cap. I mean would you run your business the way most people run football clubs, NO.

I agree with you 125, in spirit, but I'm really not sure if it's possible to introduce a wage cap that won't be abused.

I believe our opponents on Saturday have a bit of a reputation for exploiting loopholes.

GOB wrote:

I agree with you 125, in spirit, but I'm really not sure if it's possible to introduce a wage cap that won't be abused.

I believe our opponents on Saturday have a bit of a reputation for exploiting loopholes.

I know GOB, but noone thought the transfer window would be sustainable when it first came in, shouting "restriction of trade" but it survived and works, although it is more flexible than it should be.

Im sure a wage cap could be implemented within the league members rules.

I am into the basic proposition of running a club over a certain period of time in a responsible manner. But we all know in life, sometimes you need to invest sensibly in useful assets to grow your business. What does irritate here though is the same old blaming of others ... if it's not the M7, it's the football authorities.

On the whole, the 55% rule is a good one, and should be strictly enforced if it means anything at all.
But, as others have said, if Brent laments a world where he is not given the opportunity to get his wallet out, he should just get his wallet out, and pay off 'historic' debts, thus freeing up current spending. Remember that one ? historic debts ? I still laugh when I hear that.

You can't have it both ways James. Saying you want to spend, but the league are in the way of that spending, sounds remarkably like BIL suddenly realising that they were responsible for ongoing wages. It's spin..... it's Gardner saying he'll invest a million on a 20 a season striker..... but had no intention whatsoever of doing so.
I like your avatar 125.

Maybe it's my cynical mind when it comes to all things football but all I see is little brown envelopes being passed around in a kinda, Man City way.

It's a tough one, football's broke but I don't know how to fix it.

GOB wrote:

football's broke but I don't know how to fix it.

Think it would mean turning the clock back to the 70s/80s: after the abolition of the players' maximum wage but before all the telly money arrived and sent wages and transfer fees etc through the roof.

"Well, I'd love to spend but my hands are tied." How all very convenient for you brent.

Peggy wrote:

GOB wrote:

football's broke but I don't know how to fix it.

Think it would mean turning the clock back to the 70s/80s: after the abolition of the players' maximum wage but before all the telly money arrived and sent wages and transfer fees etc through the roof.

Mmm, remember it was that telly money that turned our grounds from dilapidated death traps into the comfortable and safe arenas you can take your kids to. I mean you don't want to go back to the days of causal racism and fear of getting your head kicked in at any moment.

Point taken, Bogsider, although I think it was a bit more complicated than that. Telly money helped, true, but improvements to stadium safety were also forced - by the Bradford fire, the Taylor report, Heysel and so on. Similarly, the reduction in casual racism and violence at grounds was as much to do with the decent majority of fans standing up against it all, and by changing attitudes in society as a whole, as it was with money and stadium design.

I can see that it looks like I was arguing that all football should be returned to the 1970s/80s, but I only meant the finance side of it. Footballers earning in a week more than most people earn in a year - that's obscene, and it's had knock-on effects throughout our game. I'd hoped the general state of the economy in the last three years (or so) would have forced some changes, if only out of embarrassment, but last summer's transfer window showed no change, and this one's proving little different.

Peggy wrote:

Point taken, Bogsider, although I think it was a bit more complicated than that. Telly money helped, true, but improvements to stadium safety were also forced - by the Bradford fire, the Taylor report, Heysel and so on. Similarly, the reduction in casual racism and violence at grounds was as much to do with the decent majority of fans standing up against it all, and by changing attitudes in society as a whole, as it was with money and stadium design.

I can see that it looks like I was arguing that all football should be returned to the 1970s/80s, but I only meant the finance side of it. Footballers earning in a week more than most people earn in a year - that's obscene, and it's had knock-on effects throughout our game. I'd hoped the general state of the economy in the last three years (or so) would have forced some changes, if only out of embarrassment, but last summer's transfer window showed no change, and this one's proving little different.

you could pinpoint the split second that modern football began when Gazza went in for a tackle Thomas Berthold of West Germany, thus earning the second yellow card that would see him miss Englands next match. The tears that followed, sound tracked by 'Nessun Dorma gave football a new emotinal dimension.

The FSA did a hell a lot of work convincing authorities that football supporters were as much sinned against as sinners and you had the emerging middle class football supporters as documented by Nick Hornby and then Sky released that a lot of people would pay good money to watch it and things were never the same again.

Czarcasm wrote:

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

The "legacy" equates to the "staff debt"?

If so, and we have cash available, then pay it off more quickly!

Or have I completely misinterpreted the article?

I think the article is almost intentionally left open to individual interpretation. If it isn't, then it's a piss-poor piece.

Gob has it right about the wage cap. Nothing is 'set in stone' in terms of the League enforcing anything.

Playing the wage cap card, is very much a flag of convenience that can be rolled out whenever Brent feels like it.

but cannot the fl place another embargo on us if they deem some dealings as dangerous?
Granted,its not law but we do operate under a law, the football league laws