Waraqah":2fm0bvor said:
Such as 'where did £12 million in 'other operating costs' over 3 years come from?" ?
Why do people seem to get hung up on the wrong line in the accounts?
Other operating costs cover pretty much everything that it takes to run the football club other than the staff costs. The 2009 accounts tell us that £626,000 of these costs related to the aborted Phase II and so no doubt much more followed with the failed White Elephant bid - how much that mismanangement cost us will no doubt come out eventually.
Excluding Phase II, other operating costs over the three years were £11.3m, up by 44% compared with the previous three years (£7.8m). Given that revenue over the same period was only up by 26%, there is no doubt that we had become inefficient but to highlight £12m is just wrong.
If you use the same comparative periods, staff costs were up by 87% to £19.3m (
or by 102% to £21.3m if you include transfer and signing-on fees quite rightly written off over the length of the players' contracts).
By 2009, staff costs were 86% of total revenue (or 98% including transfer and signing-on fees). From what Ridsdale has said recently, there is every reason to believe these costs have risen even higher since. If I remember correctly, when a salary cap has been muted, a figure of 60% has been mentioned.
As I said above, I am sure there are some unnecessary costs within other operating costs but the bulk of the problem is that we allowed staff (and let's face it, that's mostly the players) costs get out of hand.
We had a chance to rectify that after the January 2008 firesale but "ambition" intervened and look where we are now.