spudski Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 ...from what i've heard from various people, the main problem we are not attracting certain players to the Club is the cut in wages. For example... Bikey is 'alledgedly' on over £20,000 a week at 'Boro. We are 'alledgedly' paying a third of Mcmanus's wages... £9,000 a week. So he's on £27,000 Similar figures were banded about about other players we wanted to sign. Now...it does seem an awful lot...but when you consider the dead wood we have, surely bringing in 2 CB's and CM on high wages would make more sense, than keeping the dead wood, paying their wages and that of loan players? Surely we've spent more on wages in the last few seasons on Loan players than those they replaced? On a side thought...has anyone seen the size of Bikey these days... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Bikey All these figures are Alledged... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slacker Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Can see why Bikey needs to earn so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 ...from what i've heard from various people, the main problem we are not attracting certain players to the Club is the cut in wages. For example... Bikey is 'alledgedly' on over £20,000 a week at 'Boro. We are 'alledgedly' paying a third of Mcmanus's wages... £9,000 a week. So he's on £27,000 Similar figures were banded about about other players we wanted to sign. Now...it does seem an awful lot...but when you consider the dead wood we have, surely bringing in 2 CB's and CM on high wages would make more sense, than keeping the dead wood, paying their wages and that of loan players? Surely we've spent more on wages in the last few seasons on Loan players than those they replaced? On a side thought...has anyone seen the size of Bikey these days... http://en.wikipedia....ki/André_Bikey All these figures are Alledged... We can only spend 90% of our turnover on wages, as it was over 120% on all these deadwood you mention then we can't afford to spend 27k on a decent defender, The only way you will see that is if our avg ticket price goes up to £40 and we get 25k a week watching us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryans Left Peg Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 It's a ridiculous question to ask really.. Don't you think having one player on 30k a week and the rest on 12k or less will affect team morale? That some of the older/committed players will be annoyed? I know I would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 It's a ridiculous question to ask really.. Don't you think having one player on 30k a week and the rest on 12k or less will affect team morale? That some of the older/committed players will be annoyed? I know I would be. That's life... Imho...players and agents shouldn't talk about their wages. It's no body elses business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 That's life... Imho...players and agents shouldn't talk about their wages. It's no body elses business. there should be a wage limit reintreduced in football 200k a week for a player at the top level isn't right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 We've got 8 defenders on our books (discounting loans). I reckon that lot don't earn much more than £50K per week between them. Carey took a major pay cut to stay , Bryan won't be on a lot , Foster , Nyatanga and the 2 Wilsons I reckon £5-7K each , Cunningham & Fontaine a bit more. But , let's pay people £20K + , they better be ******* good though 'cos we could only afford a couple !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 We've got 8 defenders on our books (discounting loans). I reckon that lot don't earn much more than £50K per week between them. Carey took a major pay cut to stay , Bryan won't be on a lot , Foster , Nyatanga and the 2 Wilsons I reckon £5-7K each , Cunningham & Fontaine a bit more. But , let's pay people £20K + , they better be ******* good though 'cos we could only afford a couple !! I reckon you're right about lower wages with who we have, but i'd estimate it was a little more in total. However...what's the point in flogging a dead horse... Imho, out of the one's we own, Cunningham seems to be the only one that can consistantly cut it at this level week in, week out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 I reckon you're right about lower wages with who we have, but i'd estimate it was a little more in total. However...what's the point in flogging a dead horse... Imho, out of the one's we own, Cunningham seems to be the only one that can consistantly cut it at this level week in, week out. the problem is the rest are under contract and its not as simple as buying up contracts, both parties have to agree and compensation is involved, which would be used against us on FFP which will lead to sanctions (see swindon), None of the "deadwood" are assits as Carey is too old Fontaine wouldn't pass a medical and theres been no intrest in the others, its a rock and a hard place everyone knows its a problem but not many relise how hard it is for the manager to sort out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 I reckon you're right about lower wages with who we have, but i'd estimate it was a little more in total. However...what's the point in flogging a dead horse... Imho, out of the one's we own, Cunningham seems to be the only one that can consistantly cut it at this level week in, week out. Our staff wage bill last year , when Sexstone said it needed reducing , was £15.9M. That's the total wage bill , if we were paying people £20K per week , we would be able to afford approx. 15 staff !!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Well we're well and truely ****ed then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Well we're well and truely ****ed then... **** me , the penny's finally dropped !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Our staff wage bill last year , when Sexstone said it needed reducing , was £15.9M. That's the total wage bill , if we were paying people £20K per week , we would be able to afford approx. 15 staff !!!!!!!!!!!!! I think thats what people fail to realise, The wage bill isn't just the first team, The wage bill covers everything from tunrstyle operators to stewards, it includes all levels of coaching from the under 11 up to the devlopment squad, We can't just offer player 20k a week we did that and got into this mess in the first place, Please remember we are losing 12 million quid a season, we have to get that down to 4 million quid by next year, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 I think thats what people fail to realise, The wage bill isn't just the first team, The wage bill covers everything from tunrstyle operators to stewards, it includes all levels of coaching from the under 11 up to the devlopment squad, We can't just offer player 20k a week we did that and got into this mess in the first place, Please remember we are losing 12 million quid a season, we have to get that down to 4 million quid by next year, League 1 football it is then...seriously... we will not stay up with what we've got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 **** me , the penny's finally dropped !! It dropped years ago... I get told i'm a gloom monger...so i thought i'd try a bit of pointless waffle instead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 League 1 football it is then...seriously... we will not stay up with what we've got. we can we are better then last year but luck is against us at the moment, FFP means the teams with the off-field facilities and big grounds will go forward and teams like us will be left behind, If we don't get the new ground be prepared for a very long stay in league one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redcherryberry Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Bottom 6 budget bottom 6 team. Sooner people realise this the better. Spudski - keep talking to the people you are fella cos i got the told the exact same info as you regards to Mcmanus and Bikey's wages and my source was as good as straight from our board room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 It dropped years ago... I get told i'm a gloom monger...so i thought i'd try a bit of pointless waffle instead... Starting a thread about paying players £20K per week , that's certainly pointless waffle !! Well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Starting a thread about paying players £20K per week , that's certainly pointless waffle !! Well done Funny thing is...it got more responses than my doom and gloom sensible posts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Bottom 6 budget bottom 6 team. Sooner people realise this the better. Spudski - keep talking to the people you are fella cos i got the told the exact same info as you regards to Mcmanus and Bikey's wages and my source was as good as straight from our board room. Cheers for that mate... I've got a few connections in football, all agents, but none deal with any of the City players. They all seem to talk amongst one another though. They've all been pretty much spot on in the past...so good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Funny thing is...it got more responses than my doom and gloom sensible posts.... So , your original post was all a wind up , got you ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park End Boy Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Starting a thread about paying players £20K per week , that's certainly pointless waffle !! Well done Thank god i re-read that, for a minute there i thought you were on about B*** Waffle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo7 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 I understand the FFP rules agreed for the Championship are: 2011/12 - £4M loss +£8M shareholder bail-out = £12M - we will see in the next few weeks whether this was achieved but replication of 2010/11 (helped by the Maynard fee) will be good enough 2012/13 (this season) - £4M loss +£6M shareholder bail-out = £10M - meaning a saving of £2M (plus cost of falling gates) will be required - 2013/14 - £3M loss +£5M shareholder bail-out = £8M 2014/15 - £3M loss +£3M shareholder bail-out = £6M 2015/16 - £2M loss +£3M shareholder bail-out = £5M Unless we can find a clever way to increase revenue (filling the ground every week from now until the end of the season will only add £3M) we can expect cuts to continue BUT at some point this should be reflected in player wage demands - perhaps then we can return to some sort of sanity??? The wages as percentage of turnover rules apply to Leagues 1 and 2. Attempting to cut £2M from annual costs plus making up loss of revenue arising from falling gates seems to explain the non-signing of Bikey and Cisse and will explain why we don't secure McMannus in January. Furthemore, it seems to be we will have nothing to spend on transfer fees and should be thankful to Yannick for bringing some in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy27 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 there should be a wage limit reintreduced in football 200k a week for a player at the top level isn't right I'm not having a go, I'd just like to know why you think it 'isn't right'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 I'm not having a go, I'd just like to know why you think it 'isn't right'? they are entertainers but a basic wage of 200k a week is just wrong, in the top flight the basic wage should be capped at 50k per players with only one or two players per team able to break that, it would create a level playing field, the rest of the wages these player "need" should only be made up in performance related bonuses ie, 50k per win Defenders/goal keepers 25k per cleansheet midfielders 5k per clean sheet 15k per assist 5k per goal, striker 25k per goal, The yanks have it correct in the MLS they just don't have the standard, If FIFA and UEFA were serious about FFP they would force every league to abide by it or ris being banned form euro compatations, but it wouldn't happen for 2 reason FIFA and UEFA have no balls and are run by greedy men only intrested in money and the europian court of human rights who overturn about every sensible ruling on ground of human rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy082005 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 I'm not having a go, I'd just like to know why you think it 'isn't right'? On a flip side, do you think it's right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo7 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Bottom 6 budget bottom 6 team. Sooner people realise this the better. Spudski - keep talking to the people you are fella cos i got the told the exact same info as you regards to Mcmanus and Bikey's wages and my source was as good as straight from our board room. This is of course the inconvenient truth, awareness of which can reduce some of the frustration. However, my annoyance with the operation of the club is its complete failure to behave like others do in similar circumstances - e.g. 1/ signing two strikers when one would have done 2/ seemingly content to replace before we offload 3/ never ending series of loan-signings rather than taking a chance on a youngster Again - look at Yannick - wait years to replace Mcindoe then sign Woolford, then Yannick, then Pearson, then Anderson - four players for one position but for our central midfield frailties - give Yannick the odd cameo appearance - neither commit to him nor give up on him - he decides when its time to move on - plays every week for similarly financially challenged club It is not his case in particular that gives me cause for complaint it is that this is symptomatic of wasteful resource management, meaning less of our limited budget is put to good use earning points than other clubs in our position. Our limited budget might mean a probable outcome of between 12th and 24th but our management limits that range to 18th (or 22nd I fear) to 24th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 This is of course the inconvenient truth, awareness of which can reduce some of the frustration. However, my annoyance with the operation of the club is its complete failure to behave like others do in similar circumstances - e.g. 1/ signing two strikers when one would have done 2/ seemingly content to replace before we offload 3/ never ending series of loan-signings rather than taking a chance on a youngster Again - look at Yannick - wait years to replace Mcindoe then sign Woolford, then Yannick, then Pearson, then Anderson - four players for one position but for our central midfield frailties - give Yannick the odd cameo appearance - neither commit to him nor give up on him - he decides when its time to move on - plays every week for similarly financially challenged club It is not his case in particular that gives me cause for complaint it is that this is symptomatic of wasteful resource management, meaning less of our limited budget is put to good use earning points than other clubs in our position. Our limited budget might mean a probable outcome of between 12th and 24th but our management limits that range to 18th (or 22nd I fear) to 24th. I can pick holes in the strikers, We needed 2 goal scorers as we didn't have one at the club, We could of signed one and he could of got crocked and injured like maynard did 2 years ago which would leave us in even more shite then we are already in, Baldock and davies was a case of right place and right time and value for money the board have been banging on about, Baldock is out of sorts at the moment but Davies is banging in the goals, when davies drys up baldock could start scoring again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportingmad0209 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Paying 20-30k per week do NOT guarantee better players (DJ comes to mind)! I would much rather the club looked for value for money (Cunningham & Davis for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith_Lemon Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 I believe Swansea's wage bill was half the amount of ours when they got promoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.