Who can we sacrifice to free up salary space?

[ExiledAjax]

We have to remember that the pre-"reset" wages were unsustainable. We should not be looking to go back to those levels.

Not to say there's no headroom outside of a self-imposed cap, of course there is, but expectations need to be tempered by that memory.

[Cidre Monita]

26 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

An awful lot of assumptions and guesses here.  I was highly critical of our performance last Saturday, but for footballing reasons.  We’ve got a decent squad: it’s Pearson’s job to get them to deliver.

Assumptions and guesses? Really?! You say we have got a decent squad - 4th game in tomorrow and we have one available specialist centre back (Vyner) who may well be sold next week, one senior striker (Wells), whose best days are behind him, and what I consider to be a league 2 keeper with no serious back up. 
 

Academy players in 1st team squad:- 

* When I say academy players - obviously those promoted to the 1st team squad but on low wages to reflect this.

O’Leary/Wiles-Richards 

Vyner/Pring/Araoye/Knight-Lebel

Benarous/Scott (now gone)

Conway/Bell

[Topper 123]

2 hours ago, Son of Fred said:

You couldn't make it up -

We went so far one way with Swiss Tony & partner that we were up shit creek-

And now we're going way to the opposite end of the scale & doing an Albert Steptoe, living on a shoestring - do any of the top brass have any bloody sense??????

Seem to be selling Crown Jewels then go shopping in Aldi with money accumulated . Don’t forget we reportedly have halved wages and last 2 players alone brought in est £37 million but it was stated we didn’t need to sell  ????????

[Numero Uno]

3 hours ago, Simon bristol said:

As we go in to the next game with only 1 senior keeper, and 1 fit first choice centre back, and according to nige no space in our salary budget to bring anymore in, is there anyone that we can realistically move out, even on loan, to bring 1 or 2 more in?

bearing in mind contract lengths plus what I presume to be a higher earner, williams and weimann would be 2 that presumably would clear up some space?

im not sure how many more seasons wells is likely to be sticking around either, but with conway out there are no alternatives… any others we can move on to free up space?

Nige is either trying to be canny so we don’t get ripped off in negotiations or the club has told him there is no headroom. I would be a bit disappointed if he said “we’re minted now and I’m off to the sweet shop”!!

If Nige is telling the truth perhaps our CEO could explain to the fans what the craic is? It didn’t seem to be beyond the job description of the previous CEO. We do still have a CEO I assume?

[Mr Popodopolous]

In theory if we wanted to go promotion or bust we probably could increase the cost base from the current likely levels by £20-25m this season.

Maybe a bit more. Maybe this or next season it would be promotion or big problems.

A promotion this season would be a potentially necessary trade off. You're talking a £40m wage bill, adding to the amortisation or loan fees by £5-10m.

Clearly I don't think anyone wants or expects that but this is a bit too far in the other direction?

Edited August 24, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Monkeh]

26 minutes ago, Topper 123 said:

Seem to be selling Crown Jewels then go shopping in Aldi with money accumulated . Don’t forget we reportedly have halved wages and last 2 players alone brought in est £37 million but it was stated we didn’t need to sell  ????????

What money accumulated would that be, the club still is losing money hand over fist

[Simon bristol]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In theory if we wanted to go promotion or bust we probably could increase the cost base from the current likely levels by £20-25m this season.

Maybe a bit more. Maybe this or next season it would be promotion or big problems.

A promotion this season would be a potentially necessary trade off. You're talking a £40m wage bill, adding to the amortisation or loan fees by £5-10m.

Clearly I don't think anyone wants or expects that but this is a bit too far in the other direction?

I cant really believe that promotion would happen no matter what we throw at it,, perhaps the weight of history is clouding my judgement! 

[Bristol Rob]

20 minutes ago, Topper 123 said:

Seem to be selling Crown Jewels then go shopping in Aldi with money accumulated . Don’t forget we reportedly have halved wages and last 2 players alone brought in est £37 million but it was stated we didn’t need to sell  ????????

It might just be a case that having realised the wages to turnover ratio was beyond bonkers, the club decided to act before they were forced to do so. 

If things had contined on a high-spend/high-wage curve then sooner or later, points would have been deducted and further sanctioned applied, the 25Mil for Scott would have quickly dropped to a lower amount as we'd been in fire-sale mode and desperately trying to balance the books.

Until parachute payments change, this is always going to be a division where some clubs have a financial advantage which generally also means a sporting advantage. We can't blame SL (or anyone) for that, it's just the way it is. 

Can the club do more to reduce costs, increase revenue and possibly generate enough cash to either keep hold of, or buy a player or two? Possibly. But we'll still be reliant on the goodwill of SL.

Should the EFL take a look at the advantages that come with parachute payments and seek to make changes? Yes.

I've long held the view that parachute payments should only be used to cover the difference between what a relegated player is on and the average Championship wage, so if they were on 100k a week in the Prem and the average Championship wage is 10k, 90k a week of the parachute could be used to provide some financial smoothing. If they player moves on, then that element of the parachute is retained by the EFL and distributed across the remaining clubs. I'd also exclude players who sign in the last transfer window before relegation as being players they could weigh PP against. I'm sure we've all suspected some clubs of not using their last transfer window to ensure survival, but to try and be ready for their next Championship season. The reward for failure shouldn't result in a club being able to rebuild their side using Premier League relegation funds. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Bristol Rob said:

It might just be a case that having realised the wages to turnover ratio was beyond bonkers, the club decided to act before they were forced to do so. 

If things had contined on a high-spend/high-wage curve then sooner or later, points would have been deducted and further sanctioned applied, the 25Mil for Scott would have quickly dropped to a lower amount as we'd been in fire-sale mode and desperately trying to balance the books.

Until parachute payments change, this is always going to be a division where some clubs have a financial advantage which generally also means a sporting advantage. We can't blame SL (or anyone) for that, it's just the way it is. 

Can the club do more to reduce costs, increase revenue and possibly generate enough cash to either keep hold of, or buy a player or two? Possibly. But we'll still be reliant on the goodwill of SL.

Should the EFL take a look at the advantages that come with parachute payments and seek to make changes? Yes.

I've long held the view that parachute payments should only be used to cover the difference between what a relegated player is on and the average Championship wage, so if they were on 100k a week in the Prem and the average Championship wage is 10k, 90k a week of the parachute could be used to provide some financial smoothing. If they player moves on, then that element of the parachute is retained by the EFL and distributed across the remaining clubs. I'd also exclude players who sign in the last transfer window before relegation as being players they could weigh PP against. I'm sure we've all suspected some clubs of not using their last transfer window to ensure survival, but to try and be ready for their next Championship season. The reward for failure shouldn't result in a club being able to rebuild their side using Premier League relegation funds. 

EFL don't approve of Parachute Payments, it's the failure to agree a new system that has helped this to drag on. If nothing new can be agreed the status quo often remains.  New Regulator will hopefully inpose change where agreement cannot be reached

I do agree with your post in the main however.

[Topper 123]

6 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

What money accumulated would that be, the club still is losing money hand over fist

Pardon me for not understanding that wages have been near on halved and 2 players that only cost us development costs were sold for £37 million pound . Now I’m not the one who said we never had to sell , that was our 2 billion pound owner so if we didn’t need to sell surely some of that money need re investing, I’m not saying all but you have to speculate to accumulate in my mind 

[Monkeh]

6 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

It might just be a case that having realised the wages to turnover ratio was beyond bonkers, the club decided to act before they were forced to do so. 

If things had contined on a high-spend/high-wage curve then sooner or later, points would have been deducted and further sanctioned applied, the 25Mil for Scott would have quickly dropped to a lower amount as we'd been in fire-sale mode and desperately trying to balance the books.

Until parachute payments change, this is always going to be a division where some clubs have a financial advantage which generally also means a sporting advantage. We can't blame SL (or anyone) for that, it's just the way it is. 

Can the club do more to reduce costs, increase revenue and possibly generate enough cash to either keep hold of, or buy a player or two? Possibly. But we'll still be reliant on the goodwill of SL.

Should the EFL take a look at the advantages that come with parachute payments and seek to make changes? Yes.

I've long held the view that parachute payments should only be used to cover the difference between what a relegated player is on and the average Championship wage, so if they were on 100k a week in the Prem and the average Championship wage is 10k, 90k a week of the parachute could be used to provide some financial smoothing. If they player moves on, then that element of the parachute is retained by the EFL and distributed across the remaining clubs. I'd also exclude players who sign in the last transfer window before relegation as being players they could weigh PP against. I'm sure we've all suspected some clubs of not using their last transfer window to ensure survival, but to try and be ready for their next Championship season. The reward for failure shouldn't result in a club being able to rebuild their side using Premier League relegation funds. 

Good post, but the efl can do nothing about parachute payments, they are voted for and implemented by prem clubs, they won't get rid of them because it's a revenue stream for those relegated,

It's just a different way of trying to keep the prem a closed shop

[Monkeh]

1 minute ago, Topper 123 said:

Pardon me for not understanding that wages have been near on halved and 2 players that only cost us development costs were sold for £37 million pound . Now I’m not the one who said we never had to sell , that was our 2 billion pound owner so if we didn’t need to sell surely some of that money need re investing, I’m not saying all but you have to speculate to accumulate in my mind 

That's where you are going wrong, lansdowns money isn't the clubs money, he doesn't have to put anything in, 

Also the speculate to accumulate, is that on top of the near 180 million he's already invested into the club and seen 0 return?,

Until new investment comes into the club from a new owner or investor then we have to be self sufficient and not continue to lose close to 20 million a season

[Tony Tootle]

2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Not sure we can play the emergency keeper loan card, Bajic has played a number of games (I think) that would mean he'd need to be out as well. 

EFL rules state that ‘all the professional goalkeepers at a club are unavailable,’ due to being unfit to play, suspension or international duty.

However, a ‘professional goalkeeper’ is classed as a player who has been named in the starting eleven on five or more occasions for a Premier League or EFL club in any competitions - excluding the Papa John’s Trophy.

Therefore we we would be allowed as Bajic only has one appearance to his name (Lincoln EFL cup) and Wiles-Richards and Joe Duncan haven't got any. My suggestion of a Premier League keeper wouldn't be permitted though as apparently they are not allowed to send goalkeepers on seven-day emergency loans into the EFL.

[Bristol Rob]

2 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

That's where you are going wrong, lansdowns money isn't the clubs money, he doesn't have to put anything in, 

Also the speculate to accumulate, is that on top of the near 180 million he's already invested into the club and seen 0 return?,

Until new investment comes into the club from a new owner or investor then we have to be self sufficient and not continue to lose close to 20 million a season

And I doubt many investors are looking to use their own money.

[Topper 123]

8 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

It might just be a case that having realised the wages to turnover ratio was beyond bonkers, the club decided to act before they were forced to do so. 

If things had contined on a high-spend/high-wage curve then sooner or later, points would have been deducted and further sanctioned applied, the 25Mil for Scott would have quickly dropped to a lower amount as we'd been in fire-sale mode and desperately trying to balance the books.

Until parachute payments change, this is always going to be a division where some clubs have a financial advantage which generally also means a sporting advantage. We can't blame SL (or anyone) for that, it's just the way it is. 

Can the club do more to reduce costs, increase revenue and possibly generate enough cash to either keep hold of, or buy a player or two? Possibly. But we'll still be reliant on the goodwill of SL.

Should the EFL take a look at the advantages that come with parachute payments and seek to make changes? Yes.

I've long held the view that parachute payments should only be used to cover the difference between what a relegated player is on and the average Championship wage, so if they were on 100k a week in the Prem and the average Championship wage is 10k, 90k a week of the parachute could be used to provide some financial smoothing. If they player moves on, then that element of the parachute is retained by the EFL and distributed across the remaining clubs. I'd also exclude players who sign in the last transfer window before relegation as being players they could weigh PP against. I'm sure we've all suspected some clubs of not using their last transfer window to ensure survival, but to try and be ready for their next Championship season. The reward for failure shouldn't result in a club being able to rebuild their side using Premier League relegation funds. 

I do agree with this but when you watch mission Burnley on tv you do realise the need AT PRESENT of the parachute payments. Last season the 3 teams that came down spent £140 million obviously with some big contracts on board then the season before when Burnley were relegated the parachute payment of £50 million was a pittance compared to the 100million they lost in prem tv rights ( what a nightmare ) so I’m glad we’re not there but it would be nice to challenge and let’s hope fa find some level ground soon 

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

That's where you are going wrong, lansdowns money isn't the clubs money, he doesn't have to put anything in, 

Also the speculate to accumulate, is that on top of the near 180 million he's already invested into the club and seen 0 return?,

Until new investment comes into the club from a new owner or investor then we have to be self sufficient and not continue to lose close to 20 million a season

Yes this is a real salient post.

It is not what we want to hear but unless there is a binding contract for SL to put in £x per season (Cash Losses are the key, in the £10-15m bracket per year of late) then he is under no obligation.

He can run it on a cash breakeven if he likes. He could even run it as a cash surplus to start repaying some of his loans that haven't been converted to equity.

It is all perfectly lawful and legal.

[Topper 123]

thanks for putting me straight can you also tell me where the £130 million transfer income has gone ( not interested in wages as every club has them to pay ) just a question as I can’t find any answers to this one ?

[Ian M]

The slightly depressing side for me is the club appear to have taken the stance that incoming transfer fees will have no effect on the wage budget.

I then look at our most likely sales next Summer (Conway and Pring) and they won't be on high wages having progressed from the Academy so we will be left looking to replace from within or lower leagues only.

Fair enough, if SL has decided to stop plugging the hole each year, that's his perogative, his money his choice but that strategy has a reasonable chance at seeing us drop down the table unless recruitment is damn good.

[Riaz]

Can we get our money back on Corndog?

[Topper 123]

We all know SL has been great for the club but we mustn’t forget he chose this position of his with a promise of prem football and let’s not forget he has invested £170 million in the club one way or another , most of which he still has his hands on  ie 2 training grounds and a very large amount of shares in BCFC  so he hasnt lost all this money and also let’s remember he is VERY rich guy so moving money around like this doesn’t really effect him ( £2.48 billion )  can someone tell me where the £125 million in transfer revenue has gone ( not interested in wages as every club has to fork them out ) as this is the balance of bought and sold in last 7 years  

I just can’t make head or tell 

[Tony Tootle]

27 minutes ago, Riaz said:

Can we get our money back on Corndog?

Harry Cornick seems to have become the new scapegoat on this forum. He's no world beater but he's a decent player and we've had far worse in recent memory that have cost a lot more than he has.

[Topper 123]

10 minutes ago, Tony Tootle said:

Harry Cornick seems to have become the new scapegoat on this forum. He's no world beater but he's a decent player and we've had far worse in recent memory that have cost a lot more than he has.

I agree Tony , the bloke seems an honest player to me and I think he’ll give 100% for the shirt not saying he’s any messi but as you say we’ve had worse 

[Fontaineofallknowledge]

I understand why we are looking to limit the wage bill and not Chuck the Scott money at it like we did under Ashton-that didn't work so Steve is trying a different approach.

does feel like we are being very prudent with our recruitment now-signing youngsters with growth in them that have a sell on value. Also seem to be looking for angles which I like-such as dickie being exposed at QPR and the West Brom lad being played in too many positions.

Not very exciting for fans though as looks like another mid table finish (at best) and we now know even if we sell more players the money won't be reinvested!

would also like someone to ask lansdown about the sound bites of 'whatever football makes it can spend' and 'we have two recruitment plans depending on what happens with Scott'! Do these still hold true-if so I'd like to see the recruitment play with Scott!

Edited August 24, 2023 by Fontaineofallknowledge

[Bristol Rob]

53 minutes ago, Topper 123 said:

thanks for putting me straight can you also tell me where the £130 million transfer income has gone ( not interested in wages as every club has them to pay ) just a question as I can’t find any answers to this one ?

130mil is about 4 years worth of accumulated losses.

Does that help?

[Red-Robbo]

57 minutes ago, Ian M said:

The slightly depressing side for me is the club appear to have taken the stance that incoming transfer fees will have no effect on the wage budget.

I then look at our most likely sales next Summer (Conway and Pring) and they won't be on high wages having progressed from the Academy so we will be left looking to replace from within or lower leagues only.

Fair enough, if SL has decided to stop plugging the hole each year, that's his perogative, his money his choice but that strategy has a reasonable chance at seeing us drop down the table unless recruitment is damn good.

 

If he thinks he's haemorrhaging money from maintaining a mid-table Championship club, wait till he finds how big the holes needing plugging are with a L1 side existing within a Championship framework, with Championship off-field and administrative costs, but plummeting revenues. 

[Topper 123]

10 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

130mil is about 4 years worth of accumulated losses.

Does that help?

Losses on what

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

If he thinks he's haemorrhaging money from maintaining a mid-table Championship club, wait till he finds how big the holes needing plugging are with a L1 side existing within a Championship framework, with Championship off-field and administrative costs, but plummeting revenues. 

The AGL non matchday revenue will help though. It is a disappointing trajectory but certainly don't see us as a League One side. Lack some depth certainly..

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The AGL non matchday revenue will help though. It is a disappointing trajectory but certainly don't see us as a League One side. Lack some depth certainly..

I hope not, and 4 points from 3 games would suggest not this season. However, seemingly not having the funds to compete with teams in this division who get smaller crowds than us would suggest a downward spiral that may, indeed, lead in that direction.  Maybe with a few returnees and a few improvements from players already here, it'll all click into place. But right now, I doubt that and - as a City fan - I feel underwhelmed and prepared to see a lot of hard-to-watch games. 

[Steve Watts]

13 minutes ago, Topper 123 said:

Losses on what

The running of the football club.  I realise it's not convenient for you, but wages do form a big part of that and so have to be included!

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

The running of the football club.  I realise it's not convenient for you, but wages do form a big part of that and so have to be included!

Yes, and for @Topper 123 too at one point Championship wages- wages alone were at or in excess of 100 pct of revenue. That's a divisional average.

We were around that in 2021-22 which was Year 1 of downsizing. Would have to check for 2019-20 and 2018-19.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous