Shrimpsvoices

A 25% drop will take them down to £675,000, a substantial drop by any standard, particularly when you have a small budget to start with.

Looks like they will find it difficult to hang on to some of their better players.

With Bradford cutting their playing budget as well, will this be a general trend, possibly ourselves included.

steve mfc wrote:Possibly ourselves included.

Yes. Definitely. A six-figure sum apparently. Still substantially less than most League 2 clubs.

The club will have lost around £200K this season and, even with cuts, the same in 2009/10. Hence why we need more fans coming through the gate next season and more fundraising activities.

Surely we'll have to cut our budget also? Don't forget we had a transfer embargo given to us over Christmas for exceeding the wage-cap. Crowds this season are down roughly 500 against the previous season. The system seems pretty easy to manipulate (and I'm sure it is), but let's say that the playing budget for next season is based on crowds this season then to meet the wage-cap we'd probably have to decrease our wage bill by around 20% (assuming other sources of income stay around the same).

Like most people I'm not crystal clear on the FL regulations whereby only 60% of your income can be spent on player's wages. Do the football league rules recognise revenue and gains separately? Or is it simply one figure for income? I can't see how the club could classify the ground sale as revenue, or be part of our budget (property development does not seem part and parcel of the clubs everyday business activity).

Personally I think the ground sale is a pretty material consideration that the FL should look at, and let us opertate how we want. It seems stupid that a well run club like our own gets capped (nay, penalised) just so the FL appears to be acting legitimately and responsibly to counter the irresponsible management of other clubs.

I agree it is harsh to penalise well run clubs.

Personally looking back I think the embargo did us a favour. I know this is contoversial but what it meant:
-we were in a bit of a mess at the time and results were not going well - it stopped us making short term "panic" decisions - we can now plan sensibly over the summer and players will be a lot cheaper
-a number of players were struggling for form at the time Twiss, Artell etc- if we could of gone out and got a replacement we would of (and nobody would of argued) - these players significantly improved in the second half. without the embargo I doubt they would of got the chance
-it forced many (including me) to think about the club they have supported a long time and not take it for granted.

A good point.

Before xmas I would have said over half the players in the squad weren't good enough. Then they started playing how we know they could as they were given the chance and I would say they nearly all deserve another year at least. If we had brought new players in they would have never had the opportunity to come good.