Parky

Just to put things in perspective little Michael's personal wealth is now estimated to be £32m.

You couldn't fucking pawn a ring at a pawn shop You've yet to post an opinion that actually has a point to make on N.O regarding Newcastle United or football, and your polls are shite too. You were even chased from TOTT where they hold the copyright to shite patter. mackems.gif

Fair enough but for me, the correct tactics for any manager to apply are ones that gets the best out of the players (playing to their strengths) which is exactly what Big Sam does. His tactics lack the variation of say Mourinho's but then Mourinho is dealing with cultured footballers and can afford to be flexible. This is a personal gripe of mine, this whole Bolton play shite football and play the long ball game. They don't, no more than Chelsea and Liverpool anyway, but because they have less eye candy on display than the those two direct teams (which is what Bolton are effectively) they aren't as appealing to watch. When Bolton play at a high tempo mixing it up they can be a joy to watch at times. They are a far better team than us an almost every level, mind that isn't saying much. They played nothing but long ball against Spurs the other night. Hoofing it continually to Drogba.

Nice find Ozzie. Probably everything we don't do sadly. :-[

For sure, Spurs wouldn't put up with any crazy wages nonsense.

Case in point.

I'm genuinely hurt.

I was ganna send one of yours back to you. No need to turn a bit of banter into something it isn't Al. Just think you should leave that little can of worms unopened. God I'm getting a right proper telling off today.

High wages is one thing. Fucking batshit crazy insano wages are another. The sort of wages we are paying Scott Parker - this lad is not a superstar, yet we offered him mad wages to stop him signing for someone else. We have to stop this sort of thing. Dyer getting an improved contract when he'd barely played a game - why?? I've said it in another thread but in the next round of contract negotiations I would be offering them all reduced contracts. We can do that and still be paying them more than they can get elsewhere. Tell them to either accept or gamble on getting better money elsewhere - but caution them against just listening to their agent's tales of boundless riches elsewhere. I'd tell them to talk to Olivier Bernard about how that sort of thing works out. Then leave it with them. If they leave, they leave, and we free up millions of pounds on the wage bill. Better that than continue to support these below standard players on vastly inflated wages. I'd love to have that conversation with some of them. Dyer and Parker in particular. Neither should be on more than 40K. Shepherd should love doing it too tbh. I'd love to sit in front of player and agent, offer him the reduced wage and when the player looks to his agent to argue his corner (as he definitely will cos they're too thick to do it themselves), cut the agent off, and tell him to keep his mouth shut while I point out to the player (MY employee) that his agent has one interest - making money for himself. And that as soon as I put that reduced wage on the table, the agent saw one thing - ££££ signs at the prospect of securing himself a big slice of any signing on fee that the player makes for moving to a new club - any club, be it a lesser club or not, what does the agent care. I'd caution him that any advice he receives from this point on from his agent would be with the agent's best interests in mind, and not the players. The likes of Dyer and Parker, you could feasibly say to them - "where do you think you're going to go that's a step up from here? Nowhere. But whatever club he can find that shows an interest, your agent will advise you that that move is the right one for your career when what he really means is that it's the right one for his wallet. Now go away and think about your career and not his wallet, and let me know your decision in the morning." God I'm fucking NAILS aren't I? In the case of Dyer, you might want to point out that even the reduced rate is likely to be more than he would get elsewhere. Spurs would be his only real alternative and he would get no more than 40/50k there. He'd snap in half in Bolton or Everton's team. Dyer would be mad to leave on those wages or even with a little Gemmill discount.

I was ganna send one of yours back to you. No need to turn a bit of banter into something it isn't Al.

Double wankers I love you too Halex. Unrequited sadly :-[ Discrimination on the basis of your beliefs tbh. Since I've never met him, it would be hard to base it on anything other than his patter on here tttt God your so fickle! Back in the day I was one of your faves don't deny it! He thought you were a really good WUM back then though ....don't make me dig out the pm's... ^-^

Double wankers I love you too Halex. Unrequited sadly :-[ Discrimination on the basis of your beliefs tbh. Since I've never met him, it would be hard to base it on anything other than his patter on here tttt God your so fickle! Back in the day I was one of your faves don't deny it!

Double wankers I love you too Halex. Unrequited sadly :-[ Discrimination on the basis of your beliefs tbh. Seems a rather small price to pay. ^-^

Double wankers I love you too Halex. Unrequited sadly :-[

.....but wages are going down at most PL clubs. http://www.eufootball.biz/Finance/Premier_League_wages_decrease_for_first_time.html "Wage and salary costs fell by GBP 26 million in 2004-2005, bucking the trend over the past decade for Premier League salaries to increase by 20 percent year to year. The reduction was equivalent to each club cutting wages by GBP 1.3 million. At Chelsea, wages fell by GBP 5.9 million. Arsenal’s dropped by GBP 3.9 million, Everton by GBP 2.3 million, and Liverpool, despite victory in the Champions League, fell GBP 1.4 million. Even Tottenham Hotspur, active in the transfer market that season, cut off GBP 1.4 million. Premier League clubs believe that television revenue, which will be raised another GBP 500 million to GBP 1.7 billion during the next three-year cycle starting with 2007-08, will equal more money going to players. “We can already see this effect, with new contracts for Thierry Henry, Frank Lampard and John Terry all in the GBP 130,000-a-week bracket,” said one chief executive for a top club. “Arsenal, moving into a new, 60,000-capacity stadium, obviously feel they can afford it - Manchester United’s capacity has also increased. There are new sponsorship deals, and players' agents will have noted that in addition to what Sky and Setanta will pay us we are also doing some great deals for other rights. Our main overseas deal is yet to be done.” "

Double wankers I love you too Halex.

High wages is one thing. Fucking batshit crazy insano wages are another. The sort of wages we are paying Scott Parker - this lad is not a superstar, yet we offered him mad wages to stop him signing for someone else. We have to stop this sort of thing. Dyer getting an improved contract when he'd barely played a game - why?? I've said it in another thread but in the next round of contract negotiations I would be offering them all reduced contracts. We can do that and still be paying them more than they can get elsewhere. Tell them to either accept or gamble on getting better money elsewhere - but caution them against just listening to their agent's tales of boundless riches elsewhere. I'd tell them to talk to Olivier Bernard about how that sort of thing works out. Then leave it with them. If they leave, they leave, and we free up millions of pounds on the wage bill. Better that than continue to support these below standard players on vastly inflated wages. Looks to me like Owen earns more than Henry.

Big clubs in debt and wages scenarios... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/football/6388041.stm It is worth nothing that in the accounts, Manchester United's debt is interestingly presented, or rather not. The figures released show the club's profits tripling to £30m under the Glazers and their total income rising to £165.4m. However, what these accounts do not show is the debt of £700m, as this debt is part of the ultimate holding company. Unlike Arsenal, or what Liverpool will get into, Manchester United did not incur debt to build a new stadium. Their owners did so in order to take over a club they thought they could lead forward. Arsenal: However, take a look at the Arsenal salary curve. This shows that during those six months the salaries went up by £12m. Given that this period saw some high earners like Ashley Cole, Sol Campbell and Robert Pires leave, this must represent the cost of some new contracts. Thierry Henry is now said to be on £5m a year, while money also had to be found for a new contract for Cesc Fabregas and the wages to attract William Gallas.

I think 50% of turnover on wages has been generally accepted as the "ceiling" in the Premiership, hasn't it? Which,obviously equates to £43m of that £86m and does show us as having gone over it by over 10% (11% I think), which is a bit of a worry (thanks Graeme/Freddy!) But then, I suppose that's what desperation does to you and I suppose that's why we've had less money than normal to spend. However, since then I assume that our wages have come down a fair bit, rather than gone up, in that we've seen the exits of big-earnes such as Shearer, Boumsong and Bowyer, along with the likes of Faye, Chopra, Elliott and not to mention that I'd suggest we're spending a bit less on staff wages with Roeder and Co. against what Souness' mob were getting. Martins and Duff will be on decent wages, but I doubt Sibierski and Bernard are getting paid too much - so I'm fairly confident the £52.6m figure (if correct) will be less for 2007 - against a higher turnover. Onyewu is here now as well, of course. This season we will have seen increased revenue from being in Europe, which should put our turnover up by a fair few million on top of that and should help push us back under the "50% threshold" - not to mention the extra TV revenue next season which will again cover it. To me it seems like a risk that Freddy felt had to be taken in order to ensure our PL status and it's one that has affected our ability in the transfer market since then, but should now be getting back to normal with the wage bill having been reduced and with the extra revenue coming in. I'm not sure he can be blamed too aggressively for it, because the club has maintained a fairly average level and has had European football this season in order to cover it. In a way, although I'm certainly no expert, it seems to be a gamble that worked for the club as much as it harmed it. By the way, was our turnover in 2002 higher than £86m? 2002 was £70.9m The way you worded the initial post made it seem like the turnover was around the same, but the wage-bill was vastly inferior. Hence why I asked. Still a fair jump to go from what must be around 45% to 61% over 4 years, though. However, like I said in that post, surely being in Europe and reducing the wage bill this season will have taken us back down to a fairly sane operating level again? Cannot help but feel that in this instance, it's not as bad as you're trying to make it seem. Especially with the increased turnover next term from the new television money - although it's a shame a good chunk of that will pay for wages of players already on the books, rather than simply financing new signings like it will for almost every other club. Like Gemmill says, when there are a few players getting paid exuberant amounts it makes it very difficult to build a SQUAD to compete, rather than just a team. With the players Gem mentions and the reported wages they are getting (he didn't even mention bonuses!) it is going to make it difficult for us to buy a good number of players AND keep the wages under the 50% marker in order to get to where we are supposed to be. Unlike the teams like Spurs, who probably have a fairly even spread of wages, we're going to have to rely on some young players on comparitively small wages to "fill out" the squad, if we want to keep the wages below 50%. Good post. I guess my real thrust is that for the quality of player we have we cannot justify these wages and on the whole these lads are taking the piss and it is good time we offloaded some of these. Another hidden cost we have in relation to players is that as is well known in the industry we pay some of the highest agent fees as well. Love to see what those are! If pushed on this issue, I'd be honest and say for quality players we have to sometimes pay over the odds in wages and bonuses if we are going to get back into contention for the top 4. You make a good point about the tv deals to come and I'd like to see a good chunk of that going to erase our debt and finance a few very good players. I can't help feeling something is very wrong with this clubs finances..........

Spot on Gemma. This if we're not very careful will sow the seeds of our downfall. Shocked by the Taylor story btw.

I think 50% of turnover on wages has been generally accepted as the "ceiling" in the Premiership, hasn't it? Which,obviously equates to £43m of that £86m and does show us as having gone over it by over 10% (11% I think), which is a bit of a worry (thanks Graeme/Freddy!) But then, I suppose that's what desperation does to you and I suppose that's why we've had less money than normal to spend. However, since then I assume that our wages have come down a fair bit, rather than gone up, in that we've seen the exits of big-earnes such as Shearer, Boumsong and Bowyer, along with the likes of Faye, Chopra, Elliott and not to mention that I'd suggest we're spending a bit less on staff wages with Roeder and Co. against what Souness' mob were getting. Martins and Duff will be on decent wages, but I doubt Sibierski and Bernard are getting paid too much - so I'm fairly confident the £52.6m figure (if correct) will be less for 2007 - against a higher turnover. Onyewu is here now as well, of course. This season we will have seen increased revenue from being in Europe, which should put our turnover up by a fair few million on top of that and should help push us back under the "50% threshold" - not to mention the extra TV revenue next season which will again cover it. To me it seems like a risk that Freddy felt had to be taken in order to ensure our PL status and it's one that has affected our ability in the transfer market since then, but should now be getting back to normal with the wage bill having been reduced and with the extra revenue coming in. I'm not sure he can be blamed too aggressively for it, because the club has maintained a fairly average level and has had European football this season in order to cover it. In a way, although I'm certainly no expert, it seems to be a gamble that worked for the club as much as it harmed it. By the way, was our turnover in 2002 higher than £86m? 2002 was £70.9m As a percentage Leeds had got to 68% and according to some sources Bradford had got to 78% of wages per turnover ratio. But the Leeds figures are still contended to this day in that they bought players in a strange manner.

Our overall wage bill for 2006 was £52.6m, that against a turnover of £83.1m. Surely this is fresh madness, we can't carry on sustaining these kind of wage levels, especially without CL football. In 2002 the wage bill was £32m....Who the fuck did we hire Jacko?!

£3.8m if I'm not mistaken 3.8 is correct, dunno where the 6 came from! £3.8m = 6m Euro. Anal O is just too thick to realize that there do exist other currencies in the world. As for the for the rehashing of the old Bayern rumour. I say it again, that the only source for it were English tabloids. There was never any credible German source backing this rumour. And the same can be said about this new Hertha rumour. I very much doubt that there is any substance in it. Hertha are debt ridden and can't afford a lot. They hardly would be able meet the asking price and match Emre's wage demands. Hertha. mackems.gif

Correct. It was this herculean task that alerted ManU.