Money, Money, Money: The Pursuit Of Happiness

[Curr Avon]

Another huge dollop of sunshine that sums up what we already know. But what's the best way forward? Do we assume that the Gaffer is trying to loan in players before the November deadline, especially with new injuries to squad players, Wagstaff and Hamer. On another note Pack is one booking away from a 1 match ban and Wilbraham, two. Who'd be a football manager?

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/BRISTOL-CITY-Cost-Championship-survival-poses/story-27882867-detail/story.html

BRISTOL CITY: Cost of Championship survival poses dilemma for the Robins

By a_stockhausen  |  Posted: September 29, 2015

WITH the three newly-promoted clubs occupying the bottom three places in the Championship, Andy Stockhausen looks at the dilemma of life in the second tier for Bristol City.

THE rising cost of Championship football is making it more difficult than ever before for promoted teams to stay there.

With a fifth of the campaign already gone, the three clubs that came up at the end of last season are currently occupying the relegation positions in the second tier.

Crowned League One champions just five months ago, Bristol City are bottom of the table after registering only one win in their opening nine games.

And fellow promotion winners MK Dons and Preston North End, immediately above them and one point better off, are also finding the going tough at the higher level.

In all three cases, the newcomers are struggling to compete financially in one of the most expensive leagues in European football.

With the exception of Rotherham United, newly-promoted City, Preston and MK have the smallest turnovers and lowest wage bills in the division. And the latest league table suggests a direct correlation between expenditure and league position.

All of which raises the question: should City risk spiralling debts in order to retain their Championship status come next May?

Bankrolled by a £20 million interest-free loan from owner Steve Lansdown these days, the Robins ran up debts in excess of £50 million when last in the second tier.

The Ashton Gate wage bill has since been reduced from a high-point of £18.6m to around £6m in a bid to balance the books and those responsible for the day-to-day running of the club are determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Following promotion in May, Robins chairman Keith Dawe labelled the Championship "the league of death." And it is easy to see why; the Championship amassed £1.1bn in debt last season and the most recent accounts for all 24 clubs revealed that total debt was almost double the division's collective turnover figure.

Charged with the task of coming up with a sustainable business plan and operating within their means at the same time as keeping the club in the Championship, Dawe and his fellow directors find themselves between a proverbial rock and a hard place.

Their dilemma is reflected in City's performance in the transfer market this summer. Despite Lansdown demonstrating a willingness to dip into his own back pocket and fund large transfer fees, manager Steve Cotterill's prime targets were either not available or not affordable when it came to wages.

City's attempt to woo strikers Dwight Gayle and Andre Gray from Crystal Palace and Brentford respectively, are a case in point. On both occasions, City's bid was accepted, only for the player to turn down a move to BS3.

Gayle was not prepared to drop a division, while Gray was unable to agree personal terms after agreeing to talks with City officials. City were not prepared to meet the forward's wage demands and he promptly upped sticks and signed for Burnley instead.

A reluctance to pay the Championship's inflated going rate and risk a spiralling wage bill meant precious time was wasted during the key month of August, ensuring City began the season with a painfully thin squad.

Their one cash signing, Jonathan Kodjia, was of the bargain-basement variety, City paying French Second Division club Angers £2.1m for his services. Baulked on price and frustrated by a failure to bolster his squad in May and June, manager Cotterill was forced to pursue a Plan B, which required him to recruit four players on loan.

A similar story unfolded at MK Dons and Preston, who made just three cash signings between them. MK paid an undisclosed fee to Real Madrid for Sergio Aguza, while Preston landed City left-back Greg Cunningham and Sheffield Wednesday forward Stevie May on permanent deals. Otherwise, managers Karl Robinson and Simon Grayson were forced to fall back on the loan market to supplement under-strength squads.

Even supplemented by four short-term signings, City's squad comprises a modest 21 players, far fewer than the vast majority of their Championship rivals. City's lack of cover was highlighted as recently as last weekend when injuries to Korey Smith, Scott Wagstaff and Ben Hamer caused Cotterill to name just six substitutes at Ipswich.

It is clear further investment will be required when the transfer window reopens in January and Cotterill remains in the market for a striker and a midfielder.

In the meantime, the manager will have to work with his existing squad and hope he can come up with a formula which yields improved results and lifts City out of immediate danger.

In short, he must do his best to secure Championship survival with a League One team.

Style of play and formations have been debated by City supporters in recent weeks, but these are, in large part, subsidiary issues.

At the heart of the matter lies the fundamental dilemma of whether to accede to inflated prices and jeopardise the club's new-found economic stability or continue to adhere to the strict tenets of financial prudence and risk a quick return to League One. There exists a school of thought, influenced by the belief that you have to speculate in order to accumulate, that advocates a return to the extravagance of old.

But any decision to resort to short-term remedies must necessarily be balanced against the long-term interests of an organisation that still has to prove it can stand on its own two feet without the safety net provided by a billionaire owner.

[Jesus]

Not much in there that we don't already know.  At the end of the day, this summer and the reluctance to pay Championship wages have cost us dearly.  For me, with the new stadium being built, if SL wants to fill the new Ashton Gate he is going to have to accept wage demands of this wage or settle for being the yo-yo club of the Championship and division one. 

 

[Dave]

I would like to be able to understand the difference between a 9m transfer fee, and paying 60k wages per week for 3 years.

[richwwtk]

I would like to be able to understand the difference between a 9m transfer fee, and paying 60k wages per week for 3 years.

I think (and am most certainly wrong but putting it out there) that only wages are included when calculating the FFP rules at this level. Transfer fees paid aren't included.

[BS4 on Tour...]

Well that Stockhausen piece says we couldn't agree personal terms with Andre Gray so he went to Burnley.

But Spudski said on here that his source inside football told him we offered more money in wages to AG than Burnley...so which is right?!

[Port Said Red]

Well that Stockhausen piece says we couldn't agree personal terms with Andre Gray so he went to Burnley.

But Spudski said on here that his source inside football told him we offered more money in wages to AG than Burnley...so which is right?!

Spudski could be right, but it may not just be about cash. You can have much better accommodation etc in the North West for a lot less money than here. There may also be other clauses in the Burnley contract we weren't prepared to meet, signing on fees, sell on clauses etc. it all adds up to the Ts & Cs.

[bigbash]

I think (and am most certainly wrong but putting it out there) that only wages are included when calculating the FFP rules at this level. Transfer fees paid aren't included.

If this is true then surely Steve could just sponsor the half time oranges for 3 years at 60k a week to get round the situation

[robin_unreliant]

I would like to be able to understand the difference between a 9m transfer fee, and paying 60k wages per week for 3 years.

Look at it this way. Buy a £6m 24 year old and in two years he may be worth £10m if he does well. So that money is an investment - wages all go down the drain and are unrecoverable. I suspect as an investment expert SL may see it like that. I could be wrong but can see the logic if he does.

[samo II]

Well that Stockhausen piece says we couldn't agree personal terms with Andre Gray so he went to Burnley.

But Spudski said on here that his source inside football told him we offered more money in wages to AG than Burnley...so which is right?!

Didn't SC say that we never spoke with him, or something similar?

I remember him saying that the lad never rejected us, as he never responded to our offer before Burnley stepped in?

End of the day; if Smith is out for any significant period of time, then personally I think we'd be asking for trouble not looking to replace him.  As good as perhaps Bryan is, and as impressive as it seems Reid has managed to be in his cameos, we will need experienced cover centrally; expensive or not.

[Mad Cyril]

I would like to be able to understand the difference between a 9m transfer fee, and paying 60k wages per week for 3 years.

there is not much of a sell on value for wages.

A fee can be recouped at the end of the term (well just before the end of the term) depending on how marketable the player is after playing here. 

[Steve Watts]

If this is true then surely Steve could just sponsor the half time oranges for 3 years at 60k a week to get round the situation

That's a great idea....I don't know why Steve doesn't do that.......

It's all so easy when it's somebody else's money, isn't it?!?

[Show Me The Money!]

I don't think it is a case of just being not being able to match the budgets of other teams in the league. I think just saying that is a cop out.

If you want to get a foothold in a league you need good coaching and also good scouting network to pick up those players that aren't going to break the bank. Once you then get that foothold you can then look to increase the amount of spending if required.

There are few teams in the Premier League that have done just that like, Swansea, Stoke, Southampton and Crystal Palace.

Not saying that its easy to do but it is achievable and not just down to spending money.

[bigbash]

That's a great idea....I don't know why Steve doesn't do that.......

It's all so easy when it's somebody else's money, isn't it?!?

Steve you missed the point.  I wasn't telling him to do it, its his money he'll do what he likes with it and im sure he doesn't need any help from people like me telling how to spend it!

But if he was willing to spend 9mil on a player what's the difference between that and say sponsoring some crap in the club for a huge amount of money over a period of time?  This way the club could be more competitive on the wage budget.

[robin_unreliant]

Steve you missed the point.  I wasn't telling him to do it, its his money he'll do what he likes with it and im sure he doesn't need any help from people like me telling how to spend it!

But if he was willing to spend 9mil on a player what's the difference between that and say sponsoring some crap in the club for a huge amount of money over a period of time?  This way the club could be more competitive on the wage budget.

Yes but maybe the point is that SL isn't happy to pay massive wages that can never be recovered. On the other hand he might be up for a big transfer fee that he could get back at some point (or even make a profit).

[NOTBLUE]

This of course makes us huge underdogs in the championship,we have our backs against the wall,all we have to do turn it to our advantage, any ideas anyone.

[bcfcnick]

I think City will have to be more adventurous and gamble on some overseas recruits. Using loan market heavily isn't the answer as the likes of Doncaster tried that and they are now in the league 1 relegation zone. 

We know Steve Cotterill  (quite rightly) puts emphasis on having a small tightly knit squad and getting close with all his players.  Where I think he will have to be more flexible and willing is in recruiting more players from overseas.

It's a bit difficult knowing to what extent Keith Burt identifies players or whether that falls mainly to SC.   But let's give him the benefit of the doubt to KB and on that basis he recruited well in league 1.  It may well be that he was directed to target home based players, aside from Kodjia, on the instruction of Cotterill.  Based on the success with Kodjia perhaps  Steve needs to give the green light to Keith Burt to go out and identify about three overseas players for the January window.  English and communication issues aren't always a problem either.  Another French player might even bring more out of JK.

It's either that or targeting the best players in the lower leagues and taking a gamble there.   City haven't done that badly with overseas players before ... aside from Kodjia, Ivan Testemiţanu and 'jackie'' Dziekanowski spring to mind.   So, in short, I reckon Cotts has to be much more willing to tap into the overseas market.

[spudski]

This piece by AS is so badly written and wrong in so many ways. No mention of FFP in the Championship. SL can't just go out and pay the wages demanded by certain Championship players, without consequences. Plus his bit about Gray is wrong too.

All these loans are fine ...if you can agree on who is paying what percentage of that players wages.

Contracts and wages are so complicated these days, it's a nightmare....especially for any fan to understand the decisions on players made by a manager.

It's got to a point now, where people are wondering why so and so isn't playing in a game, without realising the manager might have to pay a huge amount depending on a players appearances. It can be a massive amount and put a huge dent in the wage budget.

Some players get bonuses for appearances....and paid per appearance.

It's got so bad, that a Club last year in the Championship, broke down appearances into minutes.

So if a player played in a game, he got paid depending on how many minutes he played and not by game appearance. It's getting totally nuts.

This is why it is so confusing to the general fan....the majority have no idea of how complicated contracts are these days. Not their fault.

Sponsership, bonuses, appearance money, money made on a players name on merchandise, off shore accounts, being paid in different currency's etc,etc....it's very, very complicated.

It's even worse lower down the leagues... Imagine being a manager and having a player on the bench you want to bring on, but can't, because the Club can't afford his appearance money or bonuses....It happens.

[Port Said Red]

This piece by AS is so badly written and wrong in so many ways. No mention of FFP in the Championship. SL can't just go out and pay the wages demanded by certain Championship players, without consequences. Plus his bit about Gray is wrong too.

All these loans are fine ...if you can agree on who is paying what percentage of that players wages.

Contracts and wages are so complicated these days, it's a nightmare....especially for any fan to understand the decisions on players made by a manager.

It's got to a point now, where people are wondering why so and so isn't playing in a game, without realising the manager might have to pay a huge amount depending on a players appearances. It can be a massive amount and put a huge dent in the wage budget.

Some players get bonuses for appearances....and paid per appearance.

It's got so bad, that a Club last year in the Championship, broke down appearances into minutes.

So if a player played in a game, he got paid depending on how many minutes he played and not by game appearance. It's getting totally nuts.

This is why it is so confusing to the general fan....the majority have no idea of how complicated contracts are these days. Not their fault.

Sponsership, bonuses, appearance money, money made on a players name on merchandise, off shore accounts, being paid in different currency's etc,etc....it's very, very complicated.

It's even worse lower down the leagues... Imagine being a manager and having a player on the bench you want to bring on, but can't, because the Club can't afford his appearance money or bonuses....It happens.

Do you think this is why Callum Robinson hasn't been utilised more? Perhaps SC is waiting until he is absolutely desperate so he doesn't exceed an agreed amount on appearance fees?

[exAtyeoMax]

This piece by AS is so badly written and wrong in so many ways. No mention of FFP in the Championship. SL can't just go out and pay the wages demanded by certain Championship players, without consequences. Plus his bit about Gray is wrong too.

All these loans are fine ...if you can agree on who is paying what percentage of that players wages.

Contracts and wages are so complicated these days, it's a nightmare....especially for any fan to understand the decisions on players made by a manager.

It's got to a point now, where people are wondering why so and so isn't playing in a game, without realising the manager might have to pay a huge amount depending on a players appearances. It can be a massive amount and put a huge dent in the wage budget.

Some players get bonuses for appearances....and paid per appearance.

It's got so bad, that a Club last year in the Championship, broke down appearances into minutes.

So if a player played in a game, he got paid depending on how many minutes he played and not by game appearance. It's getting totally nuts.

This is why it is so confusing to the general fan....the majority have no idea of how complicated contracts are these days. Not their fault.

Sponsership, bonuses, appearance money, money made on a players name on merchandise, off shore accounts, being paid in different currency's etc,etc....it's very, very complicated.

It's even worse lower down the leagues... Imagine being a manager and having a player on the bench you want to bring on, but can't, because the Club can't afford his appearance money or bonuses....It happens.

Perhaps it is time to stop these kinds of contracts. The FA need to sort this out as it is not benefitting the club, the team or the player.

[spudski]

Do you think this is why Callum Robinson hasn't been utilised more? Perhaps SC is waiting until he is absolutely desperate so he doesn't exceed an agreed amount on appearance fees?

Who knows....this is the problem....football isn't so simple these days. Much depends on a players contract.

Decisions by managers and clubs can often seem odd from an outsiders point of view...but more often than not it is down to players contracts.

Fans bemoan the fact of agents and contracts....but all this came about because in the past clubs would do a player out of money as much as possible.

It's a catch 22...clubs and players are as bad as one another. It's cut throat.

Football is a mess and complicated.

 

[rockinredrobin]

Spudski could be right, but it may not just be about cash. You can have much better accommodation etc in the North West for a lot less money than here. There may also be other clauses in the Burnley contract we weren't prepared to meet, signing on fees, sell on clauses etc. it all adds up to the Ts & Cs.

I assuming that Andre Gray looked at his options between Burnley and City and assessed which club had more chance of getting to the Prem the soonest and therefore chose Burnley

[old_eastender]

I for one, think it is right we have not be willing to pay wages way above our current wage structure, that could only cause unrest amongst the rest of the squad and lead to an inevitable wage spiral just like we allowed to happen last time in the Championship... and look where that got us. The problem for me, is knowing the desire to work within a modest wage structure our targets were the wrong ones. There were plenty of good options we could have gone for who would have fitted our wage structure; Clucas who moved from Chesterfield to Hull, Byrne who Wolves took from Swindon, Tavernier who for me should have been a no brainer to sign permanently, to name but 3.

Perhaps now the answer is to look to France, surely Kodjia must be able to recommend some good players he has played with/against who might be available for a steal...

 

[BobBobSuperBob]

I would like to be able to understand the difference between a 9m transfer fee, and paying 60k wages per week for 3 years.

the difference. Dave is the 60k a week ie 9m in total is then gone - The 9m fee , dependent on how good your judgement is a investment that could go up, down or stay about the same but the player will always retain some value.

in addition. - paying somebody double, treble or whatever everyone else in dressing room is on, can only lead to some problems

[Olé]

I would like to be able to understand the difference between a 9m transfer fee, and paying 60k wages per week for 3 years.

I don't know why people keep missing this point spectacularly. With the £9m transfer fee, as long as the player is under contract, not too old, and at the same or better standard after the 3 years, you still have your £9m (or more). With the £60k wages for 3 years, that's just an outgoing. It's like rent and house buying, only one (in theory) is a cost.

I'm guessing there was a pretty safe bet Gayle and Gray would hold or increase their value so our only issue was finding wages we could afford to pay over the term which we felt were equitable with the value the player would have added to the team and/or potentially increased their value by, and proportional with the wage structure around them.

The fact we bid £9m, as I said at the time, is really neither here nor there, it isn't any more expensive than a £1m striker who is crap and loses that value in his time with us. Choosing well, it's a capital investment - ie an asset - and the only issue becomes the wages being something we can agree to, afford, and think deliver value against the life of the asset.

 

[Major Isewater]

I for one, think it is right we have not be willing to pay wages way above our current wage structure, that could only cause unrest amongst the rest of the squad and lead to an inevitable wage spiral just like we allowed to happen last time in the Championship... and look where that got us. The problem for me, is knowing the desire to work within a modest wage structure our targets were the wrong ones. There were plenty of good options we could have gone for who would have fitted our wage structure; Clucas who moved from Chesterfield to Hull, Byrne who Wolves took from Swindon, Tavernier who for me should have been a no brainer to sign permanently, to name but 3.

Perhaps now the answer is to look to France, surely Kodjia must be able to recommend some good players he has played with/against who might be available for a steal...

 

i suspect that The Promotion squad from last year got a nice big wage increase as reward for their endeavours.

If they can't accept that a " better " player coming into the club earns more than them then tough titty.

It's up to them to improve and get themselves a more lucrative deal .

i would be happy to welcome overseas players IF they add something to the success of BCFC and are not just because they are the cheaper option.

[spudski]

The paragraph for me that sticks out for me in that write up is..... 'the Championship amassed £1.1bn in debt last season and the most recent accounts for all 24 clubs revealed that total debt was almost double the division's collective turnover figure'.

Surely as fans we need to take a minute and digest that? Because of our passion for our Clubs, we tend to simply ignore such figures.

These players we watch are never worth the money they earn...it's a joke...we all support it in our own way...and Clubs know it.

I really do wish 'Football' would implode and have to start again.

[Dave]

I understand that we are looking at an investment that could increase in value, my point is that if we had 9m to spare on a transfer fee to a player who we were also going to pay wages. There is no guarantee this would happen.

However, we also could invest this 9m on free transfers or smaller transfer fees by paying slightly increased wages. These players could also increase in value, as I would think Ayling, Freeman, Flint and Smith have done over the previous few years.

[Port Said Red]

I understand that we are looking at an investment that could increase in value, my point is that if we had 9m to spare on a transfer fee to a player who we were also going to pay wages. There is no guarantee this would happen.

However, we also could invest this 9m on free transfers or smaller transfer fees by paying slightly increased wages. These players could also increase in value, as I would think Ayling, Freeman, Flint and Smith have done over the previous few years.

I agree with you Dave, there surely must come a point for many of these players where they can either take a realistic wage or they are pretty much unemployed. I suppose there are new foreign markets opening all the time, but the risks involved in going to places like China, Turkey etc must be off putting for them too.