by Thaumagurist* » 06 Jun 2008 14:11
by Hoop Blah » 09 Jun 2008 08:50
by West Stand Man » 09 Jun 2008 08:57
by Hoop Blah » 09 Jun 2008 09:38
West Stand Man Perhaps Birmingham have a bigger stadium, more support, more income from tickets etc. Who knows?
by sheshnu » 09 Jun 2008 09:51
Hoop Blah I'll wait to see the full years figures, and our comparitive figures, before I slag off the way we approached the season,
by Hoop Blah » 09 Jun 2008 09:56
sheshnuHoop Blah I'll wait to see the full years figures, and our comparitive figures, before I slag off the way we approached the season,
by brendywendy » 09 Jun 2008 09:58
Hoop BlahWest Stand Man Perhaps Birmingham have a bigger stadium, more support, more income from tickets etc. Who knows?
Well I think their average attendence was 26k, as opposed to our 23.5k. Or, to put it another way, an extra 50k people through the gate over the season. That's probably an extra £1.5m to £2m extra revenue.
My point was that, despite their extra income, and their much more extravagent transfer policy and supposedly higher wages they still seemed to be able to return very healthy profits over the first 6 months of the season.
I'll wait to see the full years figures, and our comparitive figures, before I slag off the way we approached the season, but as this was a thread for putting the wage bill, and the rest of our finances in perspective, I thought pointing out the performance of one of our closest and most comparable competitors would be quite apt.
Sorry if you don't agree!
by Royal Rother » 10 Jun 2008 09:55
Hoop Blah I don't know if this was mentioned before, but I've only just seen that Birmingham apparently made an £8m profit for the six months leading up to Feb '08.
Not bad considering their transfer outlay, supposedly bigger wage bill than us, and what many thought was a bit of an extravagant transfer policy in January.
Obviously didn't ensure their safety though.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 246 guests