If the spectacular decline that relegated Leeds United and took them to the brink of financial meltdown hasn't woken up Premiership clubs then a report, this week, showing the percentage of wages to turnover should.
In normal life, if a family or business spends more than its income on outgoings the result is monetary struggle. If the imbalance means more than 50 or 60 per cent of that income goes out then the struggle becomes more desperate the more that imbalance grows.
Deloitte and Touche, probably the most well-known of football finance experts, have published a list of 20 Premier League clubs that showed, for season 2002-2003, the turnover, wages and percentage of that turnover that went on wages and it makes frightening reading if you have an affinity with any of the clubs on the adverse end of that list.
The findings of the report suggest that the safety line is between 50 and 60 per cent. If a club spends less than that percentage of its annual turnover on salaries then they are usually okay, says the report, but some of the clubs on the list are above that safety margin and some way beyond it.
Top of the clubs in what could almost be termed the football equivalent of 'negative equity' is Fulham who spent £36.5 million on wages in 2002-2003 despite having a turnover of £34.9 million. But the 'x' factor with Fulham is chairman and owner Mohamed Al Fayed who subsidised the club from his personal fortune.
Middlesbrough, who have millionaire owner Steve Gibson, also have a financial benefactor but one group of insolvency experts pointed out that if such a 'sugar-daddy', who may have been the reason expensive players were purchased, leaves a club they may not be able to sustain highly-paid contracts without success on the field.
But in the real world of paying outgoings from income second in the list was Leeds United, who spent a massive 88.4 per cent of their 2002-2003 income on salaries. Hence the mass exodus from Elland Road this summer.
Sunderland, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Manchester City and Aston Villa all spent in excess of 70 per cent of their income on salaries so it will be interesting to compare those figures with those of the following season, 2003-2004, which presumably will be available before the commencement of 2005-2006.
But, by then, it may well be too late for the Premier League club that the experts feel could well disappear into administration if the imbalance between income and salaries is not redressed, no particular club was identified as the one most at risk but the overall feeling that a top flight club could 'go under' is real enough.
Leeds United, now without the income of Premiership football, are still not out of the woods, despite reducing their horrendous debts, that once stood at £100 million. The club has sold a complete team of players to reduce the wage bill and are currently seeking to sell Elland Road and lease it back to further reduce expenditure and they are still at risk, even if they bounce back into the top flight at the first time of asking.
Clubs at risk are those that are just beyond the 60 per cent mark and they are Everton, 63.6; Bolton, 64.4 and Charlton, 67.1, and of them, Everton, who only narrowly avoided relegation, would seem to be at most risk, although they do have a most saleable asset in Wayne Rooney.
Even those at the top of football's financial hierarchy are feeling the strain. Sol Campbell has been told by Arsenal that he faces a pay-cut of something like 50 per cent if he wants to extend his Highbury career and Manchester United, who had a turnover of £174 million in 2002-2003, will be £7 million poorer this coming season as their pre-qualification for the Champions League, after finishing third in the Premiership last season, will mean a reduction in television revenue.
Football is getting a number of financial 'wake-up' calls on a regular basis. We must hope that attention is paid to the warnings before it is too late.
