Wage Ratio

I've read the reports on the Pink Un and on the official site responding to the survey on the finances of football clubs. Apparently our ratio (wages / turnover) for 2003/04 was 87%. That's worried me, as 55% is supposed to be a sustainable level.

As a shareholder I've a copy of the Annual Report and Accounts for 2003-04 that sets the figure at 52%, increasing from 42% in 2002-03.

Neil Doncaster, responding to the 87% figure said it was down to our ambition to deliver promotion and included the wages of Crouch, Huckerby,McKenzie and Svensson.

So what's the truth? The Annual Report should be a audited statement of the accounts. Why didn't Doncaster correct the 87% figure, or are we being mis-led?

Having such a massive amount of the turnover spent on wages doesn't seem to fit with the oft quoted 'prudence with ambition', and 'we don't need to sell' mantra that we continually hear.

cc

Posted By: cheshire canary on June 8th 2005 at 20:31:29

Message Thread

Wage Ratio (NCFC) - cheshire canary, Jun 8, 20:31:29
- did the 87% include transfer fees ? (NCFC) - oh arr, Jun 8, 23:40:00
- Is there not a discrepancy between (NCFC) - Pompatus of Creosote, Jun 8, 20:57:42
- I wondered if that included (NCFC) - Iwan Husarmi, Jun 8, 20:34:41
  - bonuses (NCFC) - cheshire canary, Jun 8, 22:22:44
    - The ?1.6m was correctly reported in the NCFC PLC Annual Report (NCFC) - oh arr, Jun 8, 23:41:39
  - It was also based on (NCFC) - Safri not Holt, Jun 8, 20:49:08
    - gates not turnover (NCFC) - cheshire canary, Jun 8, 22:24:51
      - BUY MORE NCFC MERCHANDISE ! (nm) (n/m) (NCFC) - oh arr, Jun 8, 23:42:36

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.