|
Post by myles on Aug 20, 2014 19:00:36 GMT
Many on this forum have expressed the view that we need to sign another 2-3 experienced players to give the squad any realistic chance of competing in this league and, to be honest, I'm in agreement with that. However, it has led me to wonder what the situation with the budget is and whether this can be done within what the new owners have stated to be their budget.
Pre-takeover, it was clear that IL’s wage budget for this season was going to be in the £1.2m ballpark with one further signing to be made which would bring us up to that. The new consortium then indicated that it would be increased by around £250k, so we are looking at roughly £1.45m. Since that point, Kitson also left releasing half his salary, around £60k.
So, the club effectively had £410k in the pot to spend. We’ve signed Collins and Brown who would account for around £150k between them, leaving £260k in the pot. We’ve also signed four young loan players. I understand that Jakubiak isn’t actually costing us anything, so we’re probably looking at the equivalent of £80-100k for the other three and, to be honest, I may well be undervaluing these three. (Yes, I know they are 6mth loans, but from a budgeting point of view, the on-going cost now has to be taken into account)
That leaves us with £160-180k to play with which would provide, er, not a lot. Probably one experienced goalscorer and £50k change if we’re lucky. And that’s not to mention any transfer fee which may be required.
Coming back to the original question of whether it’s possible to sign the 2-3 players we need within the declared budget, the answer appears to be “No”. Any business we do before the transfer window closes will be crucial and could well signal how serious a promotion bid we can make.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 20, 2014 19:06:09 GMT
But was the budget last season not about 1.2. In which case il would have cut it a lot this season as we let 8 go including big earners in smalley, rigg and beano. Only to bring in 2? Then take off kitson as well.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 20, 2014 19:19:29 GMT
But was the budget last season not about 1.2. In which case il would have cut it a lot this season as we let 8 go including big earners in smalley, rigg and beano. Only to bring in 2? Then take off kitson as well. No. The budget in the end last season ended up being circa £1.35 million. This was because the core budget of £1.2 million - already slightly over-spent because of Mullins' late arrival - was augmented by Hall, Connolly, Wroe, Williams etc (the latter cost very little indeed, by the way). This was a competitive budget, fairly well allocated. So a budget of 250 k over the formal £1.2 million of this year (which would have included Myles Weston had the ownership change not been pending) would end up with our budget this year being £1.45 million rather than £1.35 million last year - ie roughly comparable. The problem is that Williams, Hall, Wroe and Connolly were responsible for scoring and creating, between them, almost 20 goals, and creating at least another 10 or so for others. They were also, with an average age of about 28, well capable of playing week in, week out, unlike a group of teenagers. So the £150k laid out on them was effectively great value. Meanwhile, it looks as if rather more than that has been allocated to Morris, Riley and Long - £200k on an annualised basis... yet it does not look likely that they will be able to contribute anything like what their predecessors did, in terms of match-winning effectiveness. This is nothing against the new youngsters - and I well recognise that Melville did a great job in locating Ryan Williams - but it is another reality check. Our loanees were surprisingly effective last year. Replacing them - as well as replacing Constable, Rigg, Smalley, Kitson et al - is probably not do-able on a budget of £1.45 million. In my view.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 20, 2014 19:34:26 GMT
I might be being incredibly stupid here but if u say the 200k for the loan players we have this season balances out the 250k extra they r putting in. That still leaves beanos, rigg, smalleys and kitson's wages I don't know how much that is but it's got to be 300k plus to spend out of the 1.2m budget ? As all we have added is Collins
|
|
|
Post by moroccanyellow on Aug 21, 2014 1:11:32 GMT
I think Appleton's plan is to wait until January to sign the players he really wants. He'll bring in a whole new team, and we'll stay mid-table. But, (for the fourth season in a row) next season looks promising...
|
|
|
Post by sox on Aug 21, 2014 7:07:19 GMT
I think Appleton's plan is to wait until January to sign the players he really wants. He'll bring in a whole new team, and we'll stay mid-table. But, (for the fourth season in a row) next season looks promising... Agree, I only intend panic after January
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Aug 21, 2014 7:26:11 GMT
I think Appleton's plan is to wait until January to sign the players he really wants. He'll bring in a whole new team, and we'll stay mid-table. But, (for the fourth season in a row) next season looks promising... You think so, what will be available in January will be those who aren't doing the business, We needed to recruit during this transfer window and as results have shown with other L2 who have recruited......We have missed out again.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Aug 21, 2014 7:29:04 GMT
But was the budget last season not about 1.2. In which case il would have cut it a lot this season as we let 8 go including big earners in smalley, rigg and beano. Only to bring in 2? Then take off kitson as well. No. The budget in the end last season ended up being circa £1.35 million. This was because the core budget of £1.2 million - already slightly over-spent because of Mullins' late arrival - was augmented by Hall, Connolly, Wroe, Williams etc (the latter cost very little indeed, by the way). This was a competitive budget, fairly well allocated. So a budget of 250 k over the formal £1.2 million of this year (which would have included Myles Weston had the ownership change not been pending) would end up with our budget this year being £1.45 million rather than £1.35 million last year - ie roughly comparable. The problem is that Williams, Hall, Wroe and Connolly were responsible for scoring and creating, between them, almost 20 goals, and creating at least another 10 or so for others. They were also, with an average age of about 28, well capable of playing week in, week out, unlike a group of teenagers. So the £150k laid out on them was effectively great value. Meanwhile, it looks as if rather more than that has been allocated to Morris, Riley and Long - £200k on an annualised basis... yet it does not look likely that they will be able to contribute anything like what their predecessors did, in terms of match-winning effectiveness. This is nothing against the new youngsters - and I well recognise that Melville did a great job in locating Ryan Williams - but it is another reality check. Our loanees were surprisingly effective last year. Replacing them - as well as replacing Constable, Rigg, Smalley, Kitson et al - is probably not do-able on a budget of £1.45 million. In my view. 3 youngsters on 200k between them that seems a lot.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 21, 2014 8:22:05 GMT
3 youngsters on 200k between them that seems a lot. Not really. A highly rated Championship level striker with England age group appearances could easily be on £80k+ a year.
|
|
|
Post by jammydodger on Aug 21, 2014 8:27:20 GMT
I don't see why we'd be paying anything for Morris, an inexperienced 18 year old from a Championship side. The same goes for 17 year old Jakubiak.
Bolton wanted Riley out on loan to gain fitness so I don't see why we'd be paying too much of his wage and Long is a goalkeeper who Sheffield United see has potential to be their future first choice GK(cup tied) but needs more experience.
Not quite sure where you picked out £200k from, maybe £50k. It just seems too risky to be paying £200k for what seems like no guarantee they'll be up to it in league 2.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Aug 21, 2014 8:32:27 GMT
Signing decent players in January is more difficult than signing them before the season starts. If they are experienced players doing well, their parent club won't let them go. So you are left with either experienced players who have fallen out of favour (and have therefore probably not been playing regularly) or young players who haven't made the step up into the first team.
Basing your season on being able to reinvigorate the team in January seems a bit optimistic to me. Better to sort it out now. It might cost more but that could well be recouped in part by increased gate receipts if it actually makes a positive difference to the team and results.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Aug 21, 2014 8:38:00 GMT
I don't see why we'd be paying anything for Morris, an inexperienced 18 year old from a Championship side. The same goes for 17 year old Jakubiak. Bolton wanted Riley out on loan to gain fitness so I don't see why we'd be paying too much of his wage and Long is a goalkeeper who Sheffield United see has potential to be their future first choice GK(cup tied) but needs more experience. Not quite sure where you picked out £200k from, maybe £50k. It just seems too risky to be paying £200k for what seems like no guarantee they'll be up to it in league 2. That's it for me. We are taking young players on loan to keep the budget for later. That is affecting us though as the team is young and inexperienced. It's a risk.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Aug 21, 2014 9:17:48 GMT
3 youngsters on 200k between them that seems a lot. Not really. A highly rated Championship level striker with England age group appearances could easily be on £80k+ a year. I think that it seems an awful lot. Williams apparently cost next to nothing and the Watford winger is similar from the rumours.
The Championship clubs tend to send out players that can't get into their team for experience. My understanding is that it is normal for the lower league club to pay a proportion of the salary (Charlie may know more).
So I would be surprised if we are paying anything like the £200K. If we are then I think that we may have made a pretty big mistake.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Aug 21, 2014 9:42:32 GMT
3 youngsters on 200k between them that seems a lot. Not really. A highly rated Championship level striker with England age group appearances could easily be on £80k+ a year. Would love to know what percentage we pay.
|
|
|
Post by Junior on Aug 21, 2014 10:19:45 GMT
3 youngsters on 200k between them that seems a lot. Not really. A highly rated Championship level striker with England age group appearances could easily be on £80k+ a year. Where did you pluck that from? You can't post that without providing evidence.
|
|
|
Post by stevewilliams on Aug 21, 2014 10:24:13 GMT
what a ridiculous question junior how would myles prove that without showing you the bokes contract myles is clearly expressing his view on how much hes on which could easily be base on figures charlie has suggested in other posts on how much players get at certain levels based on his workings with oufc
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Aug 21, 2014 11:39:09 GMT
The point is though, that surely we would only be paying a smallish percentage of an 17/18 year old loanees wage? If we are paying all, or most, of them, then we probably should be using Roberts insead of Jakubiak.
|
|
|
Post by barmyarmy on Aug 21, 2014 11:48:08 GMT
I have no idea if Myles is right or wrong but he said the local consortium were £1-2 million short in their bid to buy the club, Charlie said they were very close. Someone is wrong the their facts and figures so to treat Myles figures as fact would be foolish IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 21, 2014 11:55:28 GMT
I have no idea if Myles is right or wrong but he said the local consortium were £1-2 million short in their bid to buy the club, Charlie said they were very close. Someone is wrong the their facts and figures so to treat Myles figures as fact would be foolish IMHO. Yes, you keep saying that. I don't recall ever being so definitive in that figure, so if you could show me the post where I do, I would be grateful.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Aug 21, 2014 12:51:16 GMT
I have no idea if Myles is right or wrong but he said the local consortium were £1-2 million short in their bid to buy the club, Charlie said they were very close. Someone is wrong the their facts and figures so to treat Myles figures as fact would be foolish IMHO. Yes, you keep saying that. I don't recall ever being so definitive in that figure, so if you could show me the post where I do, I would be grateful. With your posts you appear itk so if a quality championship youth player with no first team experience behind him ( Morris )80k where did you get that from? If the club wre paying a big percentage then I would be questioning the MASH/DE/MAPP as to there managerial and operating procedures of a football club.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordmitch on Aug 21, 2014 13:21:30 GMT
This is the weakest squad we've had since our return to the league. Difiicult for me to say if Appleton has the budget there to spend and doesn't know how to use it, or if he's making the best of a reduced budget.
By no means am I panicking after a few losses, but the building of this squad is not good enough ATM. If the money is there, then I do feel some blame needs to be attributed to Appleton if we don't add quality before the window shuts.
On the other hand, there is a possibility to me that the money claimed is there simply isn't. I'd love to know why we haven't built a squad that is competitive enough yet.
Here's hoping they are able to pull off some key signings in the next 10 days or so, because we need them!
|
|
|
Post by ianmoore82 on Aug 21, 2014 13:29:52 GMT
Any signings made in January will always attract a premium price as selling clubs know buying clubs are desperate.
either to push on or get out of the shit
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 21, 2014 13:31:11 GMT
3 youngsters on 200k between them that seems a lot. Not really. A highly rated Championship level striker with England age group appearances could easily be on £80k+ a year. That maybe , but we would be paying nothing like that share of it.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 21, 2014 13:31:59 GMT
I wanted to wait to comment on playing budget until after the close of the transfer window but, hell, as this thread has been started why not not dive in.
In my opinion this is could be another red flag for the owners. And it is one of the easiest to spot. Unlike checking accounts, directorships, share issues and the like, we can all recognise investment on players.
Alas, so far there has been minimal investment in the playing squad and huge savings (this could change by September 1).
I do not for one second believe we are paying as much as suggested for a 17yo, 18yo and full-back and keeper needing game time. All these loans benefit the parent club more than us. It would be highly irregular if we were paying full wages for players who were youth players and not first-team regulars. not that they would cost much but it should be about half, at the most.
The budget at the end of last season was 1.35m. Since then, Kitson, Constable, Smalley and Davies have left. Wroe, Connolly, Williams, Hall have had their loans terminated.
The first four of those have left a huge hole in the budget (set last season at £1.35m).
It was my understanding that previous to last season, Oxford had a wage structure of no more than £2.5k a week. That may have gone up. For argument's sake, let's be conservative and reckon it remains...
Kitson and Constable were both on 100k a year = £200k
Smalley and Davies accounted for 100k a year between them
So before we even look at the expired loan deals, the budget is down to about £1.1m. As charliesghost suggests those were worth about £150k.
That leaves £950,000. However, the additions of Collins and Brown probably takes us back to the £1.1m mark.
We don't really know how much we are paying to develop other teams' players. But if it is more than 100k, I'd say it is money poorly spent. That would still leave 150k, though, to match last season's end of term budget. And there is an additional 250k 'promised'.
Soon then we will really find out how serious the new owners are about building a promotion-winning side this season. Leaving it until January is, frankly, nonsense and makes no sense whatsoever. The season could well and truly be over by then. Maybe that is the plan?
If they do spend in January it will be with a view to performing next season, which is fair enough, but it will significantly damage their figures. They have budgeted for crowds of 6k. This looks unlikely with the current squad.
That brings us back to the age-old debate: does this club speculate to accumulate?
In a strong position last season, IL, flush with unbudgeted FA Cup cash, chose not to. That makes sense in light of the takeover.
The new mob must therefore decide whether to spend the surplus and the extra they claimed would be pumped in and hope that is enough for a promotion challenge, bringing the crowds they need. And it may be a forlorn one as even with that amount it would probably be no better than the 7th or 8th best budget.
Or they could gamble on cheap signings (which they have done so far) and hope that a lower-table finish (which is exactly where you would expect them to finish given the budget) doesn't mean crowds hemorrhage.
The third scenario is that this lot are just asset strippers, running the playing budget at an absolute minimum while they wait to get the land deal done and dusted.
I'm sure most Oxford fans could be forgiven for beginning to worry the latter is most likely.
|
|
|
Post by trainingcone on Aug 21, 2014 15:58:23 GMT
Many on this forum have expressed the view that we need to sign another 2-3 experienced players to give the squad any realistic chance of competing in this league and, to be honest, I'm in agreement with that. However, it has led me to wonder what the situation with the budget is and whether this can be done within what the new owners have stated to be their budget. Pre-takeover, it was clear that IL’s wage budget for this season was going to be in the £1.2m ballpark with one further signing to be made which would bring us up to that. The new consortium then indicated that it would be increased by around £250k, so we are looking at roughly £1.45m. Since that point, Kitson also left releasing half his salary, around £60k. So, the club effectively had £410k in the pot to spend. We’ve signed Collins and Brown who would account for around £150k between them, leaving £260k in the pot. We’ve also signed four young loan players. I understand that Jakubiak isn’t actually costing us anything, so we’re probably looking at the equivalent of £80-100k for the other three and, to be honest, I may well be undervaluing these three. (Yes, I know they are 6mth loans, but from a budgeting point of view, the on-going cost now has to be taken into account) That leaves us with £160-180k to play with which would provide, er, not a lot. Probably one experienced goalscorer and £50k change if we’re lucky. And that’s not to mention any transfer fee which may be required. Coming back to the original question of whether it’s possible to sign the 2-3 players we need within the declared budget, the answer appears to be “No”. Any business we do before the transfer window closes will be crucial and could well signal how serious a promotion bid we can make. Have the management got plans if the club drops down into non'league football, basicly the squad at the mo is not good enough.
|
|
|
Post by ianmoore82 on Aug 21, 2014 18:20:42 GMT
So, are we saying here that the new owners don't actually give a toss about results.
That the new manager and his team have either been hoodwinked into joining OUFC or are in collusion with the owners and have been enticed with a promise of their share in any subsequent development.
The whole shebang is smoke and mirrors, fooling us fans until it's too late?
Welcome to Paranoid United
|
|
|
Post by barmyarmy on Aug 21, 2014 18:29:50 GMT
I have no idea if Myles is right or wrong but he said the local consortium were £1-2 million short in their bid to buy the club, Charlie said they were very close. Someone is wrong the their facts and figures so to treat Myles figures as fact would be foolish IMHO. Yes, you keep saying that. I don't recall ever being so definitive in that figure, so if you could show me the post where I do, I would be grateful. Myles I saw it, it was a quote that stuck in my mind for two reasons: How did you know? Why would you say it if you did? Very uncomplimentary comment about your preferred bidder. We have exchanged opinions many times on here, you usually jump on something I say if you disagree with me yet leave me to quote this several times without questioning it. Im not about to go looking for it, there may be a quick way to look, there may not. I would doubt its on here now anyway, delete/edit function and all that.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 21, 2014 18:41:07 GMT
Yes, you keep saying that. I don't recall ever being so definitive in that figure, so if you could show me the post where I do, I would be grateful. Myles I saw it, it was a quote that stuck in my mind for two reasons: How did you know? Why would you say it if you did? Very uncomplimentary comment about your preferred bidder. We have exchanged opinions many times on here, you usually jump on something I say if you disagree with me yet leave me to quote this several times without questioning it. Im not about to go looking for it, there may be a quick way to look, there may not. I would doubt its on here now anyway, delete/edit function and all that. Well, to be blunt, I don't recall saying it as categorically as that and think you may have misinterpreted what was being said. And I do hope you're not accusing me of deleting things.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 21, 2014 19:06:49 GMT
Yes, you keep saying that. I don't recall ever being so definitive in that figure, so if you could show me the post where I do, I would be grateful. Myles I saw it, it was a quote that stuck in my mind for two reasons: How did you know? Why would you say it if you did? Very uncomplimentary comment about your preferred bidder. We have exchanged opinions many times on here, you usually jump on something I say if you disagree with me yet leave me to quote this several times without questioning it. Im not about to go looking for it, there may be a quick way to look, there may not. I would doubt its on here now anyway, delete/edit function and all that. I don't think anyone on here really knows the answer, as no-one (yet) knows what Darryl Eales has paid Ian Lenagan. Not me, not you, not Myles. It is conjecture, from some of the things that Eales has said, that he has agreed to pay a good chunk (ie a majority) of the debt that was run up during Ian's tenure. Some will say: bully for him; isn't it wonderful that he wanted the club so much that he was prepared to take the highly unusual step of paying up aged debt, as well as taking on a basically insolvent concern. Others will say: what a pity that some of those millions could not have been used to buy the stadium, and fund a concerted effort to get out of this God-forsaken division. You pays your money, you takes your views! I sort of feel both, simultaneously.... Really, how it compared to what I offered is neither here nor there now.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 21, 2014 19:46:09 GMT
So, are we saying here that the new owners don't actually give a toss about results. That the new manager and his team have either been hoodwinked into joining OUFC or are in collusion with the owners and have been enticed with a promise of their share in any subsequent development. The whole shebang is smoke and mirrors, fooling us fans until it's too late? Welcome to Paranoid United Do you know anything about this club's history?
|
|