Unless I've missed something that report uses a very broad brush stroke. The two figures which stand out for me are the average league two playing wage bill of 3 million and the average turnover per club of 4 million.
Do we really have a wave bill of 3 million? Take out 500k out and give the rest to the 22 senior pros and you average wages for them become 113k pa each. Am I being naive about something here, they don't get awarded that much on average do they? I fully accept that football is in the **** financially generally but that's like saying your average aussie drinks 30 units (or however many) per week and extrapolating from that they all do. That average is not representative in terms of the effect it'll have on the health of those boring fckuers who don't drink at all, but reading a similar statistical average you might believe that all Aussie male are living ten years less than they should because they are fcuking their livers and any other organs that care to join in.
There will be examples within the 24 league two clubs I'm sure of ones who's wage ratio to turnover is nothing like 75%. Shouldn't we be taking a lesson from their book?
And the other thing I think people are forgetting is that DB took control of this club not for ego or because he's a fan, he took over because he wanted to turn a profit in the form of a land deal, so why has he let his chairman and ceo get away with such a flagrant overspend when all that was needed on his account was league status?
With respect, CJ, this last bit of your post is symptomatic of the second biggest problem in the way this debate is being conducted. I'm not having a go at you personally but there are a couple of themes that dictate we're all just going round in circles.
The #1 biggest problem is one lots of other posters have touched on - absolutism. The second is something you've just done and it's also common elsewhere on social media: the tendency to say whatever one likes with no sense of duty to justify or back it up.
Who says there is an overspend? Who says it is flagrant? That is based on your own assumptions & calculations and, by your own admission, you are no expert.
Who says all the current ownership wants is to maintain league status? I would say there is significant evidence to the contrary and, even if that is their sole aim, to drop to the most shoestring business model out there would seem to me to be a very risky strategy indeed. You might even call it reckless - just like spending £1m more each year than 'you really need to'?
