Deano 0 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The chronny today is claiming that the following have come out of the 35mil we recieved for Carroll... 4.8mil For Cabaye Agent fee's, Sign on fee's and salaries for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye... Its rumoured that figures of around 1.5mil to both Ba and Marveaux as sign on fee's and another 1.5mil to both of the agents plus around 1mil for Abeid. 7mil. Salaries being apx 7.8mil for Ba (3 year deal on 50kpw), 9.1mil for Marveaux (5 year deal on 35kpw), 13mil for Cabaye (5 year deal on 50kpw). 26.9mil Also supposedly an "amount" set aside for new contracts to existing players and a large "amount" set aside for Enrique's new contract or should he leave a figure to get a replacement. A chunk of it was used for Tiote's contract and part of it was used for the training ground improvements. -------- Now im no mathimatician but that is in excess of 40mil already...Doesnt quite add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Thats cos no-one but the money know how it gets divvied up etc. It will only be know for sure when the accounts come out. It will be discussed forever and a day but those were expecting a few "biggish" signings will rightly have cause for grievance and those who agree with the club getting things financially right and building more slowly will be happy as it is. Personally if we they could convince Enrique to stay and get a good forward in then I think most would be very happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 12772 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. It also sets an alarming precedent. Both in terms of how they conduct business going forward and in terms of what they expect fans to accept. It implies that only by selling players can we afford to pay the wages of others? Fuck off man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 27047 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. I'm expecting us to be ditching this 'no capital outlay' policy way in advance of 2015 then as they're well up and ahead of schedule with the AC money. Great news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 31 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. Course it is, unless the had a finite pot but back into that pot must go the wages saved from departures etc. Also you would have to assume that the pot changed, maybe as a % of turnover for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeeForce 0 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 If you look at it that way they you must take in to account the 5 1/2 years money ssaved for AC's wages plus the wages of Nolan taken off that and Kuqi and anyone else who has already left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano 0 Posted July 7, 2011 Author Share Posted July 7, 2011 The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. Absolutely. Wages are part of the running costs of the club and that in turn should be paid with monies coming from TV and sponsorship deals as well as merchandising, tickets and match day income. I've enevr heard of this policy of using transfer fee's recieved to pay outgoing transfer fee's AND wages. Smokescreen? CT im all for us streamlining and aiming to run at a profit whilst building a team but this to me just doesnt make sense. I agree with your latter statement however...If we can tie Enrique down to a new contract and bring in a quality 10mil striker then if that was the end of our business i'd be pretty happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 27047 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Is that the sound of a penny dropping, there, Deano? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. Absolutely. Wages are part of the running costs of the club and that in turn should be paid with monies coming from TV and sponsorship deals as well as merchandising, tickets and match day income. I've enevr heard of this policy of using transfer fee's recieved to pay outgoing transfer fee's AND wages. Smokescreen? CT im all for us streamlining and aiming to run at a profit whilst building a team but this to me just doesnt make sense. I agree with your latter statement however...If we can tie Enrique down to a new contract and bring in a quality 10mil striker then if that was the end of our business i'd be pretty happy. I'll only say this once because Chez says it so much better..... The club has been losing money year on year. This appears to be a fact according to most recent accounts. You have found gems like Enrique and Tiote etc who have come good and want mega wages (by normal standards). You either say no and sell them, ie a selling club (as Leazes keeps arguing) or You give them the mega wages to keep them at the club. That extra money has to come from somewhere ? I cant see how you can have it both ways. You either want the club to try and keep the best players by paying big bucks but then cant comnplain because the club is finding the means to do it. It is unrealistic to assume that wages ceasing to some players, usually the poorer ones are going to fund the wage increases to the bigger players. Just for the record. I'll leave any further comment to chez as I cant be arsed with the usual back and forward with the usual people today. Edited July 7, 2011 by Christmas Tree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano 0 Posted July 7, 2011 Author Share Posted July 7, 2011 Listen...im happy with how the window has went so far...Cabaye, Ba and Marveaux are good signings as well as Abeid who we may see a bit of, all brought in. Only Nolan out and i personally dont think he would of started many games anyway. Barton and Jose are still here...Even if Enrique goes theres a plan in place to replace. M'Bengue? Bridge? Im just a little pissed off with the vagueness in which the club have said "the money will stay in the club" and "all monies has been used for this that and the other" To me that 35mil should be used for transfer fee's and agents fee's only....theres no way the wages of new players, new contract for existing players and monie for training ground developement should be taken out of that figure. The 4mil we got for Nolan should cover most of the Cabaye fee so really in essence we've not or should of touched the 35mil yet. Confusing shit man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The chronny today is claiming that the following have come out of the 35mil we recieved for Carroll... 4.8mil For Cabaye Agent fee's, Sign on fee's and salaries for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye... Its rumoured that figures of around 1.5mil to both Ba and Marveaux as sign on fee's and another 1.5mil to both of the agents plus around 1mil for Abeid. 7mil. Salaries being apx 7.8mil for Ba (3 year deal on 50kpw), 9.1mil for Marveaux (5 year deal on 35kpw), 13mil for Cabaye (5 year deal on 50kpw). 26.9mil Also supposedly an "amount" set aside for new contracts to existing players and a large "amount" set aside for Enrique's new contract or should he leave a figure to get a replacement. A chunk of it was used for Tiote's contract and part of it was used for the training ground improvements. -------- Now im no mathimatician but that is in excess of 40mil already...Doesnt quite add up. Assuming we don't sell them first. This whole wages thing is winding me right up. Not that the club are saying it, but that some people are that stupid they buy into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano 0 Posted July 7, 2011 Author Share Posted July 7, 2011 CT...Obviously the club needs to find a way to fund these "fantastic" deals for the likes of Enrique and Tiote but surely the increase in the wage bill would be still fall under the monies we receive through other means that incoming transfer fee's. Carrolls exit pretty much enabled us to offer Tiote his deal. Nolans exit pretty much covered Cabayes fee and wages also. Campbell and Kuqi leaving would of reduced the wage bill further albeit not greatly but still....add Ba and Marveaux's wages in there and going to be around a 80kpw increase in the wage bill. That should still be manageable without damaging the clubs "financial plan" nor taking it from our transfer budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 CT...Obviously the club needs to find a way to fund these "fantastic" deals for the likes of Enrique and Tiote but surely the increase in the wage bill would be still fall under the monies we receive through other means that incoming transfer fee's. Carrolls exit pretty much enabled us to offer Tiote his deal. Nolans exit pretty much covered Cabayes fee and wages also. Campbell and Kuqi leaving would of reduced the wage bill further albeit not greatly but still....add Ba and Marveaux's wages in there and going to be around a 80kpw increase in the wage bill. That should still be manageable without damaging the clubs "financial plan" nor taking it from our transfer budget. You'll have to explain what these "other means" are when the clubs losing money. Heres the link where Chez discussed it btw to save him repeating himself. http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...&pid=926085 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrossthepond 707 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Assuming we don't sell them first. This whole wages thing is winding me right up. Not that the club are saying it, but that some people are that stupid they buy into it. Pardew and Llambias have both confirmed that the club are 're-investing' the Carroll money in transfer fees, wages, the training ground, and other assorted projects. So what is being 'bought into' here? Deano, remember this quote from the other thread? We have spent a fair amount on those players, more than fans realise. If you add up the money and think we have not spent the 35 million you will be way off. I have to mark the cards of the fans on that one. (From here.) Pardew is directly telling us not to bother trying to add up the fees, spendings etc because he knows doing so will obviously reveal that the 35m has not been spent on the team, as was promised. It was a lie from the start and this is the spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 HF will probably be able to confirm this, but weren't the club making noises about being in a position whereby they would be breaking even come this summer? If that plan involves selling a player that comes through the youth academy for £35m every season then I think it may need a rethink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 12772 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 HF will probably be able to confirm this, but weren't the club making noises about being in a position whereby they would be breaking even come this summer? If that plan involves selling a player that comes through the youth academy for £35m every season then I think it may need a rethink. I can actually imagine the scenes. Half 4 in the morning at Aspers, half-cut, making business plans to sell someone for £30 million every summer until they're even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. Absolutely. Wages are part of the running costs of the club and that in turn should be paid with monies coming from TV and sponsorship deals as well as merchandising, tickets and match day income. I've enevr heard of this policy of using transfer fee's recieved to pay outgoing transfer fee's AND wages. Smokescreen? CT im all for us streamlining and aiming to run at a profit whilst building a team but this to me just doesnt make sense. I agree with your latter statement however...If we can tie Enrique down to a new contract and bring in a quality 10mil striker then if that was the end of our business i'd be pretty happy. is the penny dropping a bit yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6913 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. Apart from the fact every single club on the planet does it to some extent. Transfer income is just club income like any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 12772 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. Apart from the fact every single club on the planet does it to some extent. Transfer income is just club income like any other. Do they? I've literally never heard that until NUFC have been using it as an excuse. Find me some examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. Apart from the fact every single club on the planet does it to some extent. Transfer income is just club income like any other. I think its the implication that without selling, wages couldn't be met that is a bit unbelieveable as it would be reckless at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6913 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. Apart from the fact every single club on the planet does it to some extent. Transfer income is just club income like any other. Do they? I've literally never heard that until NUFC have been using it as an excuse. Find me some examples? It is analysed seperately but it is income just like the profit from buying a scarf from the club shop is: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. Apart from the fact every single club on the planet does it to some extent. Transfer income is just club income like any other. I think its the implication that without selling, wages couldn't be met that is a bit unbelieveable as it would be reckless at best. Club A with mediocre league position and mediocre squad loses money after taking into consideration all money making revenue. Club A wants to challenge for Europe by improving its squad, which involves increasing the wage bill. Club A must surely lose more money? Cant understand how people still dont get this or what Im missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6913 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 The notion of paying player's wages through monies taken from selling players is absolutely ridiculous and impossible to believe. Apart from the fact every single club on the planet does it to some extent. Transfer income is just club income like any other. I think its the implication that without selling, wages couldn't be met that is a bit unbelieveable as it would be reckless at best. I agree to a point, but it's all just cash in the pot from which the wages come. If your turnover is saturated you have to fund any expense from somewhere. It appears fairly obvious now, in light of the recent statements, that Ashley isn't intending to maintain his level of subsidy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneColdStephenIreland 74 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 At the risk of sounding simple as out btw say we do start breaking even and then making profits etc i dont think we'll be in the position to be making profits of huge amounts so even that will be getting watered down (The amount we make) into going into different places like this £35 million is currently being done to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now