How are our finances?

[Celtient]

BBC News - Majority of clubs on edge of 'financial disaster' - regulator
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... gx70pzq1jo

[Long slender neck]

One of this country's only successful industries

[E10quence]

Too much speculation, football agents sucking money out the game, fans finances already squeezed... when the financial tide goes out, big problems awaiting.

[Wally Banter]

As far as I understand it (which isn’t far), we tend to lose several million pounds a year, we have very little in the way of assets, and then it’s over to rich people and accountants to somehow make the losses disappear?

[Top of the JES]

Think the debt is all with Gandler's holding company. but the club have been losing 3 to 4 £million a year for the last two or three seasons.

[Scuba Diver]

BBC News - Majority of clubs on edge of 'financial disaster' - regulator
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... gx70pzq1jo

Some incredible (and alarming) stats in there e.g.:

Wages costs for L1 clubs since 2022 up 71%. The standard of play certainly Isn't.

17 clubs could still go bust even if their players played for nothing. Surely we can't be one of them: although we seem to have a top-heavy plethora of backroom foot-soldiers, and it's not always clear what their roles actually are.

As JES said. we are reckoned to lose £4m a season. That has to be sustained somehow, but who knows for how long.

[E10quence]

BBC News - Majority of clubs on edge of 'financial disaster' - regulator
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... gx70pzq1jo

Some incredible (and alarming) stats in there e.g.:

Wages costs for L1 clubs since 2022 up 71%. The standard of play certainly Isn't.

17 clubs could still go bust even if their players played for nothing. Surely we can't be one of them: although we seem to have a top-heavy plethora of backroom foot-soldiers, and it's not always clear what their roles actually are.

As JES said. we are reckoned to lose £4m a season. That has to be sustained somehow, but who knows for how long.

Top-heavy? Eh? By my estimation, the club have approximately 200 non-playing staff - broadly in-line with the average number for a club of our size.

The reason costs are escalating is largely down to playing side - salaries, transfer fees and agents fees - they're running massively above inflation. Probably on course to lose £5m-£6m this year - thankfully, we're bankrolled by Gandler for the time being, but can't rely on that being the case indefinitely.

[OyinbO]

“Average non-player costs have increased substantially across all divisions, with these costs making up a higher percentage of club expenditure towards the bottom of the pyramid”

The Independent Football Regulator, October 2026

[Chelmsford Swimmer]

There is enough money in football, such that the clubs should not be in this mess. The issue is that other than a handful of clubs, they all choose to spend beyond their means in order to be competitive. This is a problem of their own making. I suspect that the charman sit around a table, all agree they need to moderate spending to sustainable levels, but no one actually does. Clubs should be paying players what they can afford, not what players are demanding. The regulator may demand that the premier league gives more to the EFL to make the EFL more self sufficient. Unfortunately I suspect the EFL clubs will just spend more and continue to spend beyond their means. The reality is more clubs need to fold before owners will start to run clubs sustainably. The fact that some clubs can go into administration, write off debts to creditors, and then restart anew is a farce.

[Long slender neck]

Mad player wages are the elephant in the room. How do those get limited to a sensible level? Kind of feel it would even be a bit unfair on players, especially in the lower leagues who may have built their lives around football.

[E10quence]

“Average non-player costs have increased substantially across all divisions, with these costs making up a higher percentage of club expenditure towards the bottom of the pyramid”

The Independent Football Regulator, October 2026

Christ. Because overall spending is lower towards the bottom of the pyramid - therefore a bigger fixed percentage.

Non-playing costs increased 60% in League One. Playing cost increased 71% in League One.

"Total agent fees increased from £317 million to £548 million, representing 17% of English clubs’ total transfer costs in 2025/26".

[E10quence]

Mad player wages are the elephant in the room. How do those get limited to a sensible level? Kind of feel it would even be a bit unfair on players, especially in the lower leagues who may have built their lives around football.

Let's see if the new Squad Cost Rules will be effective. Player power/agents fees are a big driving factor.

[E10quence]

There is enough money in football, such that the clubs should not be in this mess. The issue is that other than a handful of clubs, they all choose to spend beyond their means in order to be competitive. This is a problem of their own making. I suspect that the charman sit around a table, all agree they need to moderate spending to sustainable levels, but no one actually does. Clubs should be paying players what they can afford, not what players are demanding. The regulator may demand that the premier league gives more to the EFL to make the EFL more self sufficient. Unfortunately I suspect the EFL clubs will just spend more and continue to spend beyond their means. The reality is more clubs need to fold before owners will start to run clubs sustainably. The fact that some clubs can go into administration, write off debts to creditors, and then restart anew is a farce.

More money needs to flow from the Premiership down to the EFL - parachute payments are distortive for the Championship and that distortion affects teams all the way down. Also think there needs to be stricter rules around the big boys hoovering up talented youngsters from lower league teams without paying any substantial fees - e.g. how much did we get from Man Citeh for Teddy Lamb?

[Mistadobalina]

Mad player wages are the elephant in the room. How do those get limited to a sensible level? Kind of feel it would even be a bit unfair on players, especially in the lower leagues who may have built their lives around football.

Let's see if the new Squad Cost Rules will be effective. Player power/agents fees are a big driving factor.

The rules have been in place for a while, don't seem to curbing unsustainable spending at all. 1,300%+ increase in 'Transfer Financing Growth' ie clubs borrowing against future income to fund current operations is proper bubble stuff. As long as the wheels keep spinning, we'll all just stay focussed on the footballing side of things.

The 50% bump we've given the playing budget is seen only through the lens of we've got better players now so we should do better on the pitch. But I haven't the foggiest on how Gandler is funding that. Could be equity injections, which are allowed under the rules, or could be borrowing against future revenue streams (ie installment payments were getting from Galbraith and Ballard). Does anyone know?

[Hoover Attack]

Also think there needs to be stricter rules around the big boys hoovering up talented youngsters from lower league teams without paying any substantial fees - e.g. how much did we get from Man Citeh for Teddy Lamb?

Nah.

It's mad that a football club can 'own' a 14 year old child and charge tens/hundreds of thousands of pounds to let him play for another football team.

[Hoover Attack]

“Average non-player costs have increased substantially across all divisions, with these costs making up a higher percentage of club expenditure towards the bottom of the pyramid”

The Independent Football Regulator, October 2026

Christ. Because revenues are lower towards the bottom of the pyramid - therefore a bigger percentage.

Non-playing costs increased 60% in League One. Playing cost increased 71% in League One.

"Total agent fees increased from £317 million to £548 million, representing 17% of English clubs’ total transfer costs in 2025/26".

Your response doesn't make any sense. Read the statement back, it's nothing to do with Revenue.

All that says is non-playing staff costs make up a higher percentage of total costs lower down. That makes sense. It's the playing staff costs which vary massively as you move up the leagues, not the backroom and support staff.

[StillSpike]

Strict cap on the number of players any team can have registered at any one time would solve a great deal of the problem

[Hoover Attack]

Would it? Surely a wage cap is harder hitting?

[Hoover Attack]

A player wage cap, I mean.

[E10quence]

“Average non-player costs have increased substantially across all divisions, with these costs making up a higher percentage of club expenditure towards the bottom of the pyramid”

The Independent Football Regulator, October 2026

Christ. Because revenues are lower towards the bottom of the pyramid - therefore a bigger percentage.

Non-playing costs increased 60% in League One. Playing cost increased 71% in League One.

"Total agent fees increased from £317 million to £548 million, representing 17% of English clubs’ total transfer costs in 2025/26".

Your response doesn't make any sense. Read the statement back, it's nothing to do with Revenue.

All that says is non-playing staff costs make up a higher percentage of total costs lower down. That makes sense. It's the playing staff costs which vary massively as you move up the leagues, not the backroom and support staff.

I meant spending. Hadn't had my coffee yet. Have corrected.

Employment/employee related costs are going up across the board - in all sectors, not just football - NMW increases, employers national insurance hikes etc.

[E10quence]

Also think there needs to be stricter rules around the big boys hoovering up talented youngsters from lower league teams without paying any substantial fees - e.g. how much did we get from Man Citeh for Teddy Lamb?

Nah.

It's mad that a football club can 'own' a 14 year old child and charge tens/hundreds of thousands of pounds to let him play for another football team.

Yeah, but the whole system is mad. If EFL clubs are scouting young players, developing them - then they go on to have successful career at higher level and generate significant transfer fees - I think a portion of that should continue to flow back to the club(s) that found them/developed them to begin with. I think this already happens in some cases, but not all. Would just create one mechanism for greater redistribution of the crazy money at the top of the game - but think there needs to be more.

[E10quence]

Mad player wages are the elephant in the room. How do those get limited to a sensible level? Kind of feel it would even be a bit unfair on players, especially in the lower leagues who may have built their lives around football.

Let's see if the new Squad Cost Rules will be effective. Player power/agents fees are a big driving factor.

The rules have been in place for a while, don't seem to curbing unsustainable spending at all. 1,300%+ increase in 'Transfer Financing Growth' ie clubs borrowing against future income to fund current operations is proper bubble stuff. As long as the wheels keep spinning, we'll all just stay focussed on the footballing side of things.

The 50% bump we've given the playing budget is seen only through the lens of we've got better players now so we should do better on the pitch. But I haven't the foggiest on how Gandler is funding that. Could be equity injections, which are allowed under the rules, or could be borrowing against future revenue streams (ie installment payments were getting from Galbraith and Ballard). Does anyone know?

SCR only came into effect from this season as far as I'm aware? Replaced PSR.

On playing budget, expect a bit of both (equity injections/future instalments of transfer fees).

[Long slender neck]

If player wages were capped, wouldnt they just all go and play abroad?

[Scuba Diver]

If player wages were capped, wouldnt they just all go and play abroad?

In theory yes, and certainly at the top end of the game, but.

I can't imagine a player playing for us (a 3rd division player) is gonna earn any more switching to the Spanish/French/Italian 3rd division - no doubt substantially less.

Add in relocation costs, needing to learn a new language etc etc and I can't see it would have much uptake.

Different for the likes of Bellingham/Kane/TAA of course.

[Scuba Diver]

BBC News - Majority of clubs on edge of 'financial disaster' - regulator
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... gx70pzq1jo

Some incredible (and alarming) stats in there e.g.:

Wages costs for L1 clubs since 2022 up 71%. The standard of play certainly Isn't.

17 clubs could still go bust even if their players played for nothing. Surely we can't be one of them: although we seem to have a top-heavy plethora of backroom foot-soldiers, and it's not always clear what their roles actually are.

As JES said. we are reckoned to lose £4m a season. That has to be sustained somehow, but who knows for how long.

Top-heavy? Eh? By my estimation, the club have approximately 200 non-playing staff - broadly in-line with the average number for a club of our size.

The reason costs are escalating is largely down to playing side - salaries, transfer fees and agents fees - they're running massively above inflation. Probably on course to lose £5m-£6m this year - thankfully, we're bankrolled by Gandler for the time being, but can't rely on that being the case indefinitely.

200 is a staggering number. Granted, some (stewards etc) will be on zero hours contracts but are still 'staff', but still.