Lincoln City and the budget table get talked about endlessly on the Stacey West, often as a blunt instrument to accentuate performance and league position, but the reality is far more nuanced than a single table showing who spends what on wages.
Here’s a fact: we’re punching well above our weight in terms of the budget table, but that’s wage budget. We have spent two big fees recently, on Ivan Varfolomeev and Josh Honohan, which some will say goes against the notion of us being the little fish in a big pond. Are there 17 clubs in our division that have spent more in terms of transfers?
That’s where the argument becomes nuanced.
The most important starting point is separating wages from transfer fees, because they are fundamentally different types of expenditure. Transfer fees, particularly for clubs like Lincoln City, are investments. They are paid with the expectation (or hope) that value can be retained or even increased, either through resale or long-term contribution on the pitch. Wages, by contrast, are pure cost. Once they are paid, they are gone. They do not appreciate, they do not come back, and they often define how far a club is prepared to stretch itself relative to its income.
That distinction matters when assessing where clubs sit in the League One food chain. Lincoln spending money on transfer fees is a privilege earned through player trading, not a sign of recklessness. Over recent seasons, the club has generated transfer income and reinvested a portion of that back into the squad. Jovon Makama‘s £1.5m (ish) move to Norwich City generated income for us to invest in Varfolomeev and Honohan, hoping that, in turn, they appreciate and move on for more. That is a sustainable model, one designed to grow assets rather than convert income directly into long-term liabilities.
Wage spend is where the real risk sits, and the key metric is wages compared to revenue. Across League One, several clubs are operating at or above 100 per cent of revenue on player wages alone. That has long been the case, with MK Dons one example I always liked to roll out. That is not pure ambition; it is exposure. It leaves little room for error and assumes that future income will always rise or that promotion will arrive on time. Some clubs can absorb that risk more easily than others, often because of owner backing or parachute payments. When an owner pulls the plug, that’s when clubs pretty quickly circle the drain.
We are closer than they have ever been to the Peterborough model, which historically combined strong transfer spend with relative wage discipline. We don’t like Peterborough because historically they’ve taken our players and staff, such as Alex Woodyard. That’s almost a compliment, in that they saw our players as ones that they felt could grow in value. Now, Huddersfield take our players, and they spend well for the privilege. We have now moved up the food chain, and sit, in my opinion, side by side with Posh when it comes to recruitment. Hence, Khela, who impressed for them, was one we were reportedly interested in over the summer. We pulled a random Varfolomeev out of the hat, they did the same with Garbett (number 28), another who impressed me.
That represents progress. It also means the Imps have moved ahead of teams like Northampton and Exeter in financial terms, even if that is not always spoken about. However, the gap to clubs such as Huddersfield, Wycombe, and Luton remains vast, particularly on wages. Wycombe, for example, are operating with a wage bill roughly double Lincoln’s, despite not having a squad that is demonstrably twice as strong. What they do have is the ability to offer contracts Lincoln simply cannot compete with. They’re paying twice the wages, but often not for twice the player, if that makes sense.
This is why the wage budget table remains the primary benchmark across the industry, even if it is not perfect. It correlates more closely with long-term performance than transfer spend alone. That said, it should never be used in isolation. Squad building happens over multiple windows, not one summer. Relegated clubs carry Championship wages, or in Luton’s case, parachute payments, which are not artificially boosting income like a rich owner. It means some League One clubs, such as us and Burton, are forced to spend bigger just to stand still. Sell-on clauses, add-ons, and loan contributions distort the picture further.
With a budget around 18th in the division and sensible transfer investment, a mid-table or top-half finish would normally be our expectation. Very few managers finish in a position vastly above their budget means – Ritchie Wellens and Gary Caldwell were up there with Michael last season, and Alex Revell is likely to be there this season.
Where we currently sit is miles beyond what any single financial metric would predict. We have bought players for the future, as part of the wider financial strategy, but that does not diminish the achievement. If anything, understanding the full financial context enhances it. This team is not outperforming its means by accident. It is doing so because those means are being used intelligently, patiently, and with a clear long-term plan.
In conclusion, citing the budget table position should not be seen as a way of pleading poverty, but rather a metric to underline how well the club is currently performing both on and off the field. It might not always be recognised when we’re letting in late goals at Blackpool and Wycombe in games we should have taken more from, but within the industry, there is no doubt Lincoln City are fast becoming a benchmark for how things should be done.
You must be logged in to post a comment.