Wolves 22/23 accounts

[QB Wolf]

I meant football mismanagement created the scale of the losses that created a FFP problem . But that didnt come out of the blue. We accumulated big wages and amortisation costs on some very poor football decisions . Silva and Guedes being the obvious ones may be another £15 million per annum - and in the three year FFP cycle £45 million of that £110 million !

Is this peculiar to Wolves or do other clubs sign some players that don't work out?

 

[hollo]

You can all spray figures around
to try to second guess something you haven’t got a clue about, but it’s all irrelevant really.

Wolves are an established club in the biggest league in the world.
Our owners are also investing large amounts each year.

We don’t have a recognised CF at the club but we do have two players on loan on whom we spent over £60m and have barely played for us.

You can say what you like but if the manager of such a club wants a CF (which ours does) and we find ourselves in a position where we can’t afford Che Adam’s then something is wrong somewhere (and i think most people know where that is).

Then shi should have gone along with sellars. So badly run.

 

[WickedWolfie]

Then shi should have gone along with sellars. So badly run.

I am absolutely no fan of Shi but he is human. As far as l am aware there is no such thing as a perfect human so mistakes will be made. If we are badly run now then what is your view of 1982-2017 inclusive?

 

[WolvesinBrum]

You're right. Live attendances should be scrapped and everyone subscribe to Sky or their local provider. That is where the money comes from.

I think Berlusconi once said that in the future fans / spectators of sports will be paid to attend as TV needs the atmosphere of a crowd.

 

[loppers86]

Is it Lopetegui's fault?

i strongly suspect that after Loppy had signed the nucleus of our current successful squad (thereby enabling a sale in which we recouped all the money and more), he requested that we sign a striker and was told we couldn’t.

So rather than it being his fault, it was actually the reason he left? Speculation I know - which is what everyone else in this thread does all day everyday.

 

[loppers86]

I am absolutely no fan of Shi but he is human. As far as l am aware there is no such thing as a perfect human so mistakes will be made. If we are badly run now then what is your view of 1982-2017 inclusive?

You can’t compare the two due the resources we currently have. I remember the young and hungry policy which just meant we were totally broke.

One could argue that with the amount of money we shouldn’t really have had to beg Loppers to save us.

The responsibility for that is crystal clear. Shi.

With almost anyone else in charge we would be in a better position than we are today. Generational Talent my ****.

 

[QB Wolf]

i strongly suspect that after Loppy had signed the nucleus of our current successful squad (thereby enabling a sale in which we recouped all the money and more), he requested that we sign a striker and was told we couldn’t.

So rather than it being his fault, it was actually the reason he left? Speculation I know - which is what everyone else in this thread does all day everyday.

“We lost a lot of players and we think the club want to sell more players. In this situation, we need players to balance the squad and be competitive in the Premier League.”

No speculation, he said this and he was wrong.

 

[wwbug]

Is this peculiar to Wolves or do other clubs sign some players that don't work out?

There is lots of poor management in football. It is just a matter of scale.

 

[brianm]

“We lost a lot of players and we think the club want to sell more players. In this situation, we need players to balance the squad and be competitive in the Premier League.”

No speculation, he said this and he was wrong.

Yeah, but he had bigger ambitions than just avoiding relegation. He wanted to push for Europe and make a cup run, and
In order to do
That, we need to buy more
players and be bold
To match those ambitions.........
(Thank you, Julen! Good luck!)

 

[wolvesjoe]

I read the whole of Swiss Ramble's analysis and, although it didnt add much more to the discussion, the tables he has assembled for all Premier clubs, on various financial questions, are fascinating.

Take home points:

1. Wolves are operating very much at the top end of the scale re. investment, with only Villa, Newcastle, Everton and Forest more extended, outside of the top 6. Chelsea are the most vulnerable in terms of wages and amortisation costs, but have also sold players and have players to sell.

2. Wolves' sales this season and last have left Wolves in the clear as regards PSR.

3. The gap between the top 6 and the rest is widening in financial terms.

4. Interest charges became a significan item. Fosun's conversion of debt into equity may reduce this charge in the next period.

5. Still unclear just how much scope Wolves have in terms of the summer transfers. Depends on the following variables:

a. How much profit was made with the sales during 23/24.
b. How much amortisation charges are reduced following sales and the maturation of some players' tranfer fees.
c. How much wages have been reduced by sales of many of the highest earners.
d. How much increased income is there this year from final position and the FA cup run.

Craig Spillard has estimated a projected final surplus from the current season as low as 5m. My estimate is that it will be significantly higher, due to
lower wages, lower amortisation costs, higher eventual figure on player trading, and a higher figure on prize/broadcasting monies.

Final point: Fosun continue to be guarantors for Wolves making full use of the allowable losses, losses which partly close the gap with other clubs with a higher income. This, I predict, will continue to be the requirement for Wolves to maintain their competitiveness with that bunch of clubs who are trying to break into the 4-6th positions. Sustainability, in terms of the club not requiring extra regular investment is a pipedream, (unless the 70% cap on player costs is introduced into the Premier League).

Developing and expanding the ground remains the elephant in the room, both for shorter term aim in increasing revenues, but also in the longer term upgrading of the club relative to a raft of clubs with big stadia and bigger plans.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I read the whole of Swiss Ramble's analysis and, although it didnt add much more to the discussion, the tables he has assembled for all Premier clubs, on various financial questions, are fascinating.

Take home points:

1. Wolves are operating very much at the top end of the scale re. investment, with only Villa, Newcastle, Everton and Forest more extended, outside of the top 6. Chelsea are the most vulnerable in terms of wages and amortisation costs, but have also sold players and have players to sell.

2. Wolves' sales this season and last have left Wolves in the clear as regards PSR.

3. The gap between the top 6 and the rest is widening in financial terms.

4. Interest charges became a significan item. Fosun's conversion of debt into equity may reduce this charge in the next period.

5. Still unclear just how much scope Wolves have in terms of the summer transfers. Depends on the following variables:

a. How much profit was made with the sales during 23/24.
b. How much amortisation charges are reduced following sales and the maturation of some players' tranfer fees.
c. How much wages have been reduced by sales of many of the highest earners.
d. How much increased income is there this year from final position and the FA cup run.

Craig Spillard has estimated a projected final surplus from the current season as low as 5m. My estimate is that it will be significantly higher, due to
lower wages, lower amortisation costs, higher eventual figure on player trading, and a higher figure on prize/broadcasting monies.

Final point: Fosun continue to be guarantors for Wolves making full use of the allowable losses, losses which partly close the gap with other clubs with a higher income. This, I predict, will continue to be the requirement for Wolves to maintain their competitiveness with that bunch of clubs who are trying to break into the 4-6th positions. Sustainability, in terms of the club not requiring extra regular investment is a pipedream, (unless the 70% cap on player costs is introduced into the Premier League).

Developing and expanding the ground remains the elephant in the room, both for shorter term aim in increasing revenues, but also in the longer term upgrading of the club relative to a raft of clubs with big stadia and bigger plans.

Thanks. So any idea why The Athletic are telling us the club are projecting a loss £37m (reduced to £22m for PSR)? Or even how it could be possible to do that while remaining under £105m rolling losses?

 

[wolvesjoe]

Thanks. So any idea why The Athletic are telling us the club are projecting a loss £37m (reduced to £22m for PSR)? Or even how it could be possible to do that while remaining under £105m rolling losses?

I believe that will refer to the estimated operational loss prior to player trading. The surplus from player trading has been quoted as ca. £83 million. This would leave an actual profit at somewhere between 35 to 40m, meaning running 3 year losses, adjusted to include PSR deductibles, at around 65m, (105 loss for seasons 21/22 and 22/23 less 40m surplus for 23/24)....(some approximations in those figures).

There are some reasons to believe that the actual surplus may be higher:

a. Transfer surplus. Wolves sold players for around £140 million this season, yet only bought in players worth £26m approx, (Bellegarde, Bueno, and Doyle if his transfer goes through at the end of this season). Of course, there may be other factors we are unaware of, but currently there is the possibility that the transfer surplus was greater than 83m.

b. Wolves operated with a small squad, mainly made up of players bought on a relatively modest budget, (the exception is Cunha). A small squad on modest outlay inevitably means a lower amortisation charge. We dont know by how much, but again the possibility.

c. Several high earners left the club or at least the wage bill, (Jimenez, Neves, Mouthino, Traore, Coady, Podence on loan, Guedes on loan, then Fabio and Sasa for half a season). This should/could lead to a more significant drop in the wage bill for season 23/24, given that the only additions were Bellegarde, Bueno, Doyle and Lemina Jr

d. Eventual monies for broadcasting revenues, prize money for final finish, and proceeds from the FA cup run may well end up higher than the initial conservative estimates.

e. The very high interest charge of £15m for season 22/23 may be reduced significantly this season following Fosun's intervention, (losses more than £5m a year have to be converted into equity according to the regulations).

To conclude, my estimate from going through the figures is that Wolves end up with a turnover at approx £180m against operational costs, including wages and amortisation, at around £210 m, leaving a deficit of approx £30m. After player trading surplus is brought into the final figures, Wolves' surplus for this season will be in the region of £50-55million.

This estimate is based on the assumption of Wolves' main costs as being wages at £120m, (67% of turnover), amortisation costs of £45m, operational costs at £40m and interest at £5m, giving total of £210m against turnover of £180m, leaving a surplus of £53m after player trading taken into account.

Next season will therefore allow substantial investment in the playing side as the club will have significant room to manoeuvre inside the PSR framework of rules and stipulations.

Any of our current players who are sold for significant sums will only increase this room for manoeuvre, at a time when many clubs will be looking to reduce their budgets dramatically. In that sense Fosun have got ahead of the game and are well-placed. The caveat, which must be made clear, however, is that this requires Fosun to go exploiting the financial possibilities made available through the allowable losses as long as they can. This remains the crazy side of Premier League finances: to even have a seat at the table in terms of the finances, a club must be funded by around a 100,000 pounds a day above income.

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

Thanks. So any idea why The Athletic are telling us the club are projecting a loss £37m (reduced to £22m for PSR)? Or even how it could be possible to do that while remaining under £105m rolling losses?

The easy answer is we cant
We have to make circa £10 mil profit to stay ahead of breaking the limit
Personally i cant see us making any kind of loss this season,more like £20-£30mil profit,thats a pure guess btw,but nevertheless i think ill be much closer than the Athletics guess,and have a little money to spend before we have to sell players

 

[wolvesjoe]

The easy answer is we cant
We have to make circa £10 mil profit to stay ahead of breaking the limit
Personally i cant see us making any kind of loss this season,more like £20-£30mil profit,thats a pure guess btw,but nevertheless i think ill be much closer than the Athletics guess,and have a little money to spend before we have to sell players

Do you think that the Athletic's figure of £37m loss for current year includes or excludes the surplus made this season on player trading?

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Do you think that the Athletic's figure of £37m loss for current year includes or excludes the surplus made this season on player trading?

Just in case you don't shell out £1 a month for The Athletic, this is what Steve Madeley wrote, but in my head he hasn't got a spreadsheet on it, he's just saying what the club are telling him. I'm presuming it must include trading as he's talking about the (very limited) headroom.

For instance, Wolves’ current forecasts for the 2023-24 season predict a loss of £39.7million, but when allowable expenses are removed from the equation, it would leave Wolves with a predicted loss of £22m for PSR purposes.

When allowable expenses are taken into account, current predictions would leave Wolves staying within the £105million limit by £2.7m for the three years ending in May 2024.

At face value though it makes a farce of what we've been told previously though as the accounts are
+14m -46m -67m = -99m , fairly close to the limit. But now we're told that we can lose £22m and still pass which would make -46 -67 -22 = -135m and have 3m headroom, which must mean there were 33m of allowable expenses in 21/22 and 22/23, which means we were nowhere near last summer.

Still as clear as mud to me.

 

[wolvesjoe]

Just in case you don't shell out £1 a month for The Athletic, this is what Steve Madeley wrote, but in my head he hasn't got a spreadsheet on it, he's just saying what the club are telling him. I'm presuming it must include trading as he's talking about the (very limited) headroom.

For instance, Wolves’ current forecasts for the 2023-24 season predict a loss of £39.7million, but when allowable expenses are removed from the equation, it would leave Wolves with a predicted loss of £22m for PSR purposes.

When allowable expenses are taken into account, current predictions would leave Wolves staying within the £105million limit by £2.7m for the three years ending in May 2024.

At face value though it makes a farce of what we've been told previously though as the accounts are
+14m -46m -67m = -99m , fairly close to the limit. But now we're told that we can lose £22m and still pass which would make -46 -67 -22 = -135m and have 3m headroom, which must mean there were 33m of allowable expenses in 21/22 and 22/23, which means we were nowhere near last summer.

Still as clear as mud to me.

I just listened to Liam Keen's presentation of the meeting that journalists had with Matt Hobbs. He does not make it clear as to whether the projected figures for this season include player trading surplus. It seems that he has implicitly accepted that the final figures does include that surplus.

But as you say, that doesnt appear to make any sense, given the scale of the surplus.

 

[wolvesjoe]

Just in case you don't shell out £1 a month for The Athletic, this is what Steve Madeley wrote, but in my head he hasn't got a spreadsheet on it, he's just saying what the club are telling him. I'm presuming it must include trading as he's talking about the (very limited) headroom.

For instance, Wolves’ current forecasts for the 2023-24 season predict a loss of £39.7million, but when allowable expenses are removed from the equation, it would leave Wolves with a predicted loss of £22m for PSR purposes.

When allowable expenses are taken into account, current predictions would leave Wolves staying within the £105million limit by £2.7m for the three years ending in May 2024.

At face value though it makes a farce of what we've been told previously though as the accounts are
+14m -46m -67m = -99m , fairly close to the limit. But now we're told that we can lose £22m and still pass which would make -46 -67 -22 = -135m and have 3m headroom, which must mean there were 33m of allowable expenses in 21/22 and 22/23, which means we were nowhere near last summer.

Still as clear as mud to me.

The PSR deductibles seem to amount to somewhere between 10m and 15m per season.

 

[wolvesjoe]

Keen also reports that the club maintains a perspective to being a break even club that doesnt need inputs from the owners.

It may just be for public consumption, but that seems an entirely unrealistic aspiration. The allowable losses represent an
opportunity to increase financial might by some 20% a year. Take that away in the pursuit of breaking even, and the club is
seriously weakened.

It may be, however, that the outcome of current Premier League discussions will lead to a full harmonisation with UEFA's
70% cap on all player costs, including wages and amortisation charges. If so, this changes things massively. For Wolves, it would mean an
approximate £10million clear profit per annum, a sum which could go to stadium development for instance. But it would also mean most likely lower wages and lower transfer fees as the market adjusted to the 70% cap. That remains hard to imagine.

 

[Chris H]

Keen also reports that the club maintains a perspective to being a break even club that doesnt need inputs from the owners.

It may just be for public consumption, but that seems an entirely unrealistic aspiration. The allowable losses represent an
opportunity to increase financial might by some 20% a year. Take that away in the pursuit of breaking even, and the club is
seriously weakened.

It may be, however, that the outcome of current Premier League discussions will lead to a full harmonisation with UEFA's
70% cap on all player costs, including wages and amortisation charges. If so, this changes things massively. For Wolves, it would mean an
approximate £10million clear profit per annum, a sum which could go to stadium development for instance. But it would also mean most likely lower wages and lower transfer fees as the market adjusted to the 70% cap. That remains hard to imagine.

He actually said they want to be self sufficient on the pitch, which is what Hobbs said, he wants us to be self sufficient so any funds introduced by Fosun can be utilised to invest off the field (I.e. Stadium, Academy, Training facilities / infrastructure).

I don’t think there’s too much wrong with that. We’re never going to outspend the big 6 just throwing money at players (recent history shows we’ve done that poorly anyway) so better to invest in growing the business as a whole and make it sustainable so further investment can increase it again and again.

 

[wolvesjoe]

He actually said they want to be self sufficient on the pitch, which is what Hobbs said, he wants us to be self sufficient so any funds introduced by Fosun can be utilised to invest off the field (I.e. Stadium, Academy, Training facilities / infrastructure).

I don’t think there’s too much wrong with that. We’re never going to outspend the big 6 just throwing money at players (recent history shows we’ve done that poorly anyway) so better to invest in growing the business as a whole and make it sustainable so further investment can increase it again and again.

I dont think "it is throwing money", rather than operating in the market level. If the 70% rule is implemented, then your scenario becomes possible. But as it stands, mid-range clubs will have to use allowable losses to compete.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

The PSR deductibles seem to amount to somewhere between 10m and 15m per season.

Yes, I mean Madeley is saying £15m this season, fine. But if it was £15m for the previous three seasons then we were way under last season. Everything I get told on here makes sense on its own, nothing makes sense when you put it all together!

My guess is they weren't as close as we were told last year and the projections going forward aren't about scraping under PSR, but planning for new rules and also being sustainable, no issue with that, except I'd like to know the truth.

 

[wolvesjoe]

Yes, I mean Madeley is saying £15m this season, fine. But if it was £15m for the previous three seasons then we were way under last season. Everything I get told on here makes sense on its own, nothing makes sense when you put it all together!

My guess is they weren't as close as we were told last year and the projections going forward aren't about scraping under PSR, but planning for new rules and also being sustainable, no issue with that, except I'd like to know the truth.

What appears to make sense to me, is a certain amount of news management, to present the club in the best possible light.

 

[Titch]

Premier League statement

 

[Bill McCai]

Premier League clubs have agreed to "prioritise the swift development and implementation of a new League-wide financial system."

New guidelines could come into force as early as this summer and, if finalised, will replace profit and sustainability rules.

Aim is to align with UEFA's squad cost ratio rules which limit how much club revenue can be spent on transfers and wages. However, the limit could be as high as 85% allowing more leeway for big-earning or strong on-field performing clubs.

 

[brianm]

This much turbulence in such a mature league with regard to such fundamental rules is truly shambolic. To rush in implementation is extraordinary.

 

[Fenrir_]

Premier League statement

That's Everton's next appeal sorted out

 

[Wolf316]

Looks like they’re still protecting the big boys then.

 

[brianm]

Looks like they’re still protecting the big boys then.

"oh boy, it looks like these rules would actually hurt some clubs we like. better fix that sharpish."

 

[Flaneur]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767243600444682523

 

[Chris H]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767243600444682523

Not sure this is any better than the existing rules, but at least it’s less opaque with no excluded costs etc. it should be relatively straightforward to compare the booked player costs vs turnover.

Won’t stop clubs trying to fiddle aspects, but they’re doing that anyway so at least this has less room to try and blur the lines.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Looks like they’re still protecting the big boys then.

How are they. Maybe I've misunderstood, but teams playing in Europe (all the 'big boys' except Chelsea, who aren't actually big boys) will have to get under 70%, whereas teams not in Europe can spend 85%. The only other way is to have a wage cap, but that's unfair on teams fighting in the CL. Also do we really want Luton in a level playing field with Arsenal? What happens next Telford on a level playing field with Wolves? Big clubs have more money, may as well go and support US sports if you want everyone to get a go at winning!

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

Not sure this is any better than the existing rules, but at least it’s less opaque with no excluded costs etc. it should be relatively straightforward to compare the booked player costs vs turnover.

Won’t stop clubs trying to fiddle aspects, but they’re doing that anyway so at least this has less room to try and blur the lines.

They may as well rename it the ‘Premier League Matthew effect of accumulated advantage’

Or to put more simply, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Whilst it maybe more transparent, it literally kills any challenge to the sky 6. Clubs are limited to how they can increase turnover, as the 3 main sources of revenue are TV money, sponsorship and Match day income.

• TV income is pretty much fixed (does vary obviously by league position).
• Sponsorship is locked down, as they make sure you can’t overinflate sponsorship
• Match day income, generally dependant on size of crowds - and guess who has the largest capacities?(newcastle Probably being the exception to the rule)

The move to percentage of turnover actually strengthens the strangle hold of the big 6 as it removes the ability of a benefactor/owner covering losses and injecting capital and investment.

 

[Flaneur]

They may as well rename it the ‘Premier League Matthew effect of accumulated advantage’

Or to put more simply, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Whilst it maybe more transparent, it literally kills any challenge to the sky 6. Clubs are limited to how they can increase turnover, as the 3 main sources of revenue are TV money, sponsorship and Match day income.

• TV income is pretty much fixed (does vary obviously by league position).
• Sponsorship is locked down, as they make sure you can’t overinflate sponsorship
• Match day income, generally dependant on size of crowds - and guess who has the largest capacities?(newcastle Probably being the exception to the rule)

The move to percentage of turnover actually strengthens the strangle hold of the big 6 as it removes the ability of a benefactor/owner covering losses and injecting capital and investment.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767249640645099838

 

[Chris H]

They may as well rename it the ‘Premier League Matthew effect of accumulated advantage’

Or to put more simply, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Whilst it maybe more transparent, it literally kills any challenge to the sky 6. Clubs are limited to how they can increase turnover, as the 3 main sources of revenue are TV money, sponsorship and Match day income.

• TV income is pretty much fixed (does vary obviously by league position).
• Sponsorship is locked down, as they make sure you can’t overinflate sponsorship
• Match day income, generally dependant on size of crowds - and guess who has the largest capacities?(newcastle Probably being the exception to the rule)

The move to percentage of turnover actually strengthens the strangle hold of the big 6 as it removes the ability of a benefactor/owner covering losses and injecting capital and investment.

I agree with everything you say, but the current rules work in much the same way. You’re currently allowed to lose £35m a season so clubs with bigger revenue can spend the extra they earn plus £35m.

I see the example @Flaneur has posted below yours but with those same clubs and numbers Man City can spend £735m whereas Newcastle can spend £335m which is a £400m difference. The new rules (theoretically) allow for a difference of £280m instead so is smaller in theory.

I don’t know what the right answer is personally, I know the current rules are restrictive and the new ones will be too, but there needs to be something in place because football is eating itself and without any rules it becomes a dick swinging contest for the ultra rich.

You’ll never level the playing field on spend across a league because if you set a cap at say £200m that’s more than half a dozen clubs currently earn but significantly less than another half a dozen do, it wouldn’t work in my opinion.

The rules need to incentivise spending well rather than spending lots, how that could work I’ve no idea.

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

I agree with everything you say, but the current rules work in much the same way. You’re currently allowed to lose £35m a season so clubs with bigger revenue can spend the extra they earn plus £35m.

I see the example @Flaneur has posted below yours but with those same clubs and numbers Man City can spend £735m whereas Newcastle can spend £335m which is a £400m difference. The new rules (theoretically) allow for a difference of £280m instead so is smaller in theory.

I don’t know what the right answer is personally, I know the current rules are restrictive and the new ones will be too, but there needs to be something in place because football is eating itself and without any rules it becomes a dick swinging contest for the ultra rich.

You’ll never level the playing field on spend across a league because if you set a cap at say £200m that’s more than half a dozen clubs currently earn but significantly less than another half a dozen do, it wouldn’t work in my opinion.

The rules need to incentivise spending well rather than spending lots, how that could work I’ve no idea.

I agree, and I’m not completely against the concept of sustainability rules, if indeed that is the point of them. But actually the reality this the current rules prevent any sustained challenge to the sky 6 and as I see it the new rules probably more so.

I don’t purport to know the answers, but if it’s truly about safeguarding clubs rather than protection of the elite, then whilst there needs to be limits - there should also be a way of expansion.
Maybe some sort of bond system? Whereby for any expenditure/loss above a prescribed/acceptable limit, the owners have to deposit an equivalent bond with the PL. That would actually safeguard the club.

 

[Wolf316]

Very interesting thread

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767305199213826352

 

[Titch]

We should have let them form their Super League!

 

[Shergar]

All of a sudden the ‘why us’ victim paranoia bleated out by Everton fans has its justification.
At the rate the goalposts are moving maybe Everton can claim more than the 6 points back as a way of compensation/interest.?

 

[wolvesjoe]

All of a sudden the ‘why us’ victim paranoia bleated out by Everton fans has its justification.
At the rate the goalposts are moving maybe Everton can claim more than the 6 points back as a way of compensation/interest.?

Quite possibly. Its what Martin Samuel, who is pretty clued up football journalist, has been arguing for a while now.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Very interesting thread

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767305199213826352

So if you want to throw loads of money at it then you can, you can have the glory, just not the prize money?

How the hell is the idea that overspending brings a sporting advantage a 'baseless assertion' I mean why is anyone overspending if you aren't gaining a spending advantage?