GordieBoy80 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 The 96K is the wage budget for the 1st team squad, not including the players who are classed as in the under 20 squad (Goodfellow, Drummond, Spence, O'Kane, and so forth). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Erm....mainly because a player budget isn't broken into two parts, a normal budget and an additional budget when setting out your annual finances. It makes no sense. I note you say "most likely spend [sic] in wages", so you're obviously not quite clear either.Well their are clearly other costs to being full time. The board estimate £96k of our cash reserves will need to be spent in order to stay full time- its really not a difficult concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pesadilla Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 The 96K is the wage budget for the 1st team squad, not including the players who are classed as in the under 20 squad (Goodfellow, Drummond, Spence, O'Kane, and so forth). Cheers. That's not quite as large is what I'd have expected. Moffat and Buchanan must have made significant inroads into that. Well their are clearly other costs to being full time. The board estimate £96k of our cash reserves will need to be spent in order to stay full time- its really not a difficult concept. Look mate, butt out and let someone who knows answer. You are clearly fucking clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 The 96K is the wage budget for the 1st team squad, not including the players who are classed as in the under 20 squad (Goodfellow, Drummond, Spence, O'Kane, and so forth). That seems slightly low to me tbh, I wouldn't expect it to need to be subsidised if that's the case. Then again we do have quite a large % of the squad who could be classified as part of the development squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pars fan Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Just ignore him. He's a wind up merchant. You know, one of those loser trolls? I feel sorry for the guy. He's obviously lonely. Get out more 'ron' Rangers will win the league again, don't worry so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Look mate, butt out and let someone who knows answer. You are clearly fucking clueless. Angry, angry man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 The 96K is the wage budget for the 1st team squad, not including the players who are classed as in the under 20 squad (Goodfellow, Drummond, Spence, O'Kane, and so forth). No no no. No it's not - absolutely nowhere near it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordieBoy80 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 That seems slightly low to me tbh, I wouldn't expect it to need to be subsidised if that's the case. Then again we do have quite a large % of the squad who could be classified as part of the development squad. We're running with a slightly smaller 1st team squad than last year and more members of the under 20 squad will be in and around the 1st team squad more often. The wages of the under 20 squad are paid by Black and White rather than the club so that's why their wages aren't included in the 96K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 We're running with a slightly smaller 1st team squad than last year and more members of the under 20 squad will be in and around the 1st team squad more often. The wages of the under 20 squad are paid by Black and White rather than the club so that's why their wages aren't included in the 96K. Have black and white brought the u20s under their control? I thought the case was they ran the youth side up to but not including the u20s, with the u20s being directly under dafc ltd control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pesadilla Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 We're running with a slightly smaller 1st team squad than last year and more members of the under 20 squad will be in and around the 1st team squad more often. The wages of the under 20 squad are paid by Black and White rather than the club so that's why their wages aren't included in the 96K. So the majority of your squad will be paid by a seperate entity? How are they funded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 So the majority of your squad will be paid by a seperate entity? How are they funded?Black and white are fully owned by dafc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordieBoy80 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Have black and white brought the u20s under their control? I thought the case was they ran the youth side up to but not including the u20s, with the u20s being directly under dafc ltd control. Black and White have been responsible for the financial side of the under 20s since the start of last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 No no no. No it's not - absolutely nowhere near it!What do you think it is? Also for comparison what would you expect ayr's to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pesadilla Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 This is surely a very convoluted way to operate. A club who have a budget to pay their players, yet fully own another enity who pay more players whilst keeping it off the clubs books. The club rent a stadium from another company but can, if required, borrow money from that company. Am I close yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 That would barely cover four players. Part-time teams at this level have a budget of almost double that. The £96k will be over and above what a sustainable part-time budget would be. I'd expect the overall first-team squad budget will be around £300k (which is around £50k less than QoS the season before last). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Black and White have been responsible for the financial side of the under 20s since the start of last season. That makes sense I know it was planned but i thought there was sfa barriers that might of stopped it happening, It's interesting how easy such barriers no longer exist when a certain man left. It's also not surprising such a relatively small change didn't get reported when much bigger things happened. £96k just doesn't add up for me, even if a large % of the squad are paid under black and white. It only works at 8 players on £300 pw even if they only get paid for 40 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Gordie's interpretation of the £96k is way off. Four players on £500 per week (which you definitely have) is £100k itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 This is surely a very convoluted way to operate. A club who have a budget to pay their players, yet fully own another enity who pay more players whilst keeping it off the clubs books. The club rent a stadium from another company but can, if required, borrow money from that company. Am I close yet? Believe it or not things are simpler than they were under masterton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordieBoy80 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 That makes sense I know it was planned but i thought there was sfa barriers that might of stopped it happening, It's interesting how easy such barriers no longer exist when a certain man left. It's also not surprising such a relatively small change didn't get reported when much bigger things happened. £96k just doesn't add up for me, even if a large % of the squad are paid under black and white. It only works at 8 players on £300 pw even if they only get paid for 40 weeks. Now that I've done some calculations myself it does seem like a ridiculously low figure. The figure is either erroneous or is only for a short period of time rather than the whole season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Gordie's interpretation of the £96k is way off. Four players on £500 per week (which you definitely have) is £100k itself. I'm not sure we will defiantly have 4 players on £500 pw it will be close to that but I'm not 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.