koven

I reckon around 250 of that full time staff figure of 307 would probably account for only £7.5m or so of the £50m wage bill. Average wage £30k. That might even be a bit high. They might but if we take Owen's and Dyer's wages at what we think they are, then you can effectively take another £8.5 million off the total, since these 2 will skew the average. Why would you want to do that? They are playing staff (alledgedly) and therefore their wage forms part of the average, doesn't matter if they skew it or not. Its all well and good saying that if we weren't paying Owen this and Dyer that we wouldn't have a problem. We are paying them it, and we do have a problem It does matter. We weren't trying to find the average wage at the club. We are trying to work out what the average player is on. I.e. what players like Taylor/Baba/Carr/Bramble earn. If you include the £5million Owen earns every year and the £3.5 million Dyer does, then it's gonna look like Taylor and them earn more than they actually do. That's why it would skew the average. You're right if we wanted a mathematical average I would include those players but what good would that figure do. I've already explained why I don't think the total is something to be worried about.

Well said. i think exactly the same Agreed. If I'm honest he's my favourite player. I can't believe people slated a 20 odd year old for urinating in the street, i've done it quite a few times lol.

I think there is generally positives in relation to the players but the problem is how it's implemented. As has been said, I would have Edgar playing left-back every week ahead of Carr/Duff/Baba but he doesn't even make the bench sometimes? Milner plays fantastic and gets dropped or put on the left? Roeder plays Sib up front in place of Dyer. Plus a few more that I can't be bothered to list. I think if we can strengthen the defence in the summer we can still be easily contesting 5/6/7 provided the players are implemented into the team properly and Owen stays fit.

I reckon around 250 of that full time staff figure of 307 would probably account for only £7.5m or so of the £50m wage bill. Average wage £30k. That might even be a bit high. They might but if we take Owen's and Dyer's wages at what we think they are, then you can effectively take another £8.5 million off the total, since these 2 will skew the average.

Don't get me wrong, whilst I don't think there is a wage crisis at the club or that we should be worried by the cost of wages that doesn't mean I'm happy with them. There is always an argument for reducing the wage bill and when we sign players we should be paying them as little as possible. The difficulty comes because I think good players = high wages = success. Of course we don't always (read: rarely) get it right, but it's no surprise that the top 4 teams have the highest wage bills in the league. And when we have trouble offloading players it's usually because we've signed them when they look good and they end up rubbish. Take Hugo Viana, he was young european footballer of the year and said to be better than Christiano Ronaldo by some. What a waste of money that was. And even Luque was a hot prospect. Deportivo paid more for him than us and he did well there. Another waste of money. Simply put, I don't think we can argue in other threads that we need to sign brilliant players and improve the team while saying we need to reduce the wage bill in another. The 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

Ok then. Look at most of the players in that 28 (Here's some just for example - Bramble, Taylor, Huntington, Pattison, Bernard, Harper, Milner, Carr, Babayaro, Ameobi, Sibierski, Edgar). Would you pay them £35k a week? No, and I doubt we do for a lot of that list, which just goes to show how much we ARE overpaying a good chunk of the squad. With your ridiculous argument you've actually provided further evidence that we are paying way over the odds on wages to certain members of the squad. There are maybe 10 or 11 players in the squad that I could reasonably put on £35k+. That the average for the full 28 is £35k tells me something is not right. Anyway, divide the wage bill by whatever number you like. It's still too high as a percentage of turnover. Then use your brain and imagine what the average would be if we stopped paying players over the odds - because whether you like it or not, we ARE paying players over the odds, as you've proven with your little exercise above. Reducing the cost base is key whether the current average wage is £35k or not. Did you decide to stop reading there? lol If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average. That was an oversimplification. Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays? We have something like 800 employees not 28. Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop. And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week? Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet. All players get overpaid in the premier league. Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing. Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us. Now who overpays? I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it. The figures don't bear that out. But not so good with words? Wait a minute daft lad. Are you dividing our total wage bill by 28 or the players' wage bill by 28. You see because when you said "That's excluding wages to the board, management, coaches, stewards, shop workers, cleaners and everyone else employed by the club" I foolishly assumed that you meant what you said. Now you're telling me that you just divided the entire wage bill by 28. Which was a little bit silly, wasn't it? Not as silly as me for assuming that the word "excluding" meant "not including" though, it seems. Tell me again who's not very good with words. If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. It wasn't so unclear was it? I divided the entire wage bill by the 28 players, commented that it was £35k per week and then added that I hadn't included all the other wage earners in that calculation. If I meant the players wage bill why would I mention the board, management team and shop workers? And the players wage bill? Where can I access that then? Unless you work in the finance department of the club there is no way you could have access to it, if it even exists. So why would I use it in an argument? Maybe you should read more carefully or ask for an explantion rather than calling people daft. And why was it silly, I tried to keep the calculations simple. Sadly, not simple enough it seems Employee figures: Ticker: NCU Exchanges: LON 2006 Sales: 90,639,348 Currency: Pounds Sterling Fiscal Year Ends: June Share Type: Ordinary Country: United Kingdom Major Industry: Recreation Sub Industry: Miscellaneous Recreation Employees: 789 Market Capitalization: 83,857,410 Total Shares Outstanding: 133,107,000 Closely Held Shares: 87,302,383 But you did include those people's wages in your calculation. And then said that you had excluded them, when what you meant was you'd not included them in your divisor. You explained yourself appallingly and your argument remains poor. The more you explain your logic, the less it makes sense. By the way, I reckon the 800 figure actually does include matchday catering etc - i.e. people that are beyond part-time. The football club is the playing staff, the coaching staff, the board, and the administrative staff. Probably a few hundred employees. You can stick your fingers in your ears and claim that we aren't overpaying players all you like btw, but it is common knowledge in football that we offer big money wages to players, paying over the top to secure signings. It needs to stop. No-one else seemed to have a problem with it. I reckon the 800 does include match day catering as well, but then so does Spurs' figures so what's your point? I wasn't suggesting that if I included the stewards and managers pay it would bring the average wage of a player down to £3k a week. But there is no way I can find out what other employees earn so I couldn't work it out any futher. I'm sure you can see this. All I could do is show how much each player would earn if they were the only employees at the club. Then explain that in doing so I hadn't taken into account all the other employees which would reduce the average further. I apologise if it wasn't clear; I'll be sure to simplify more in the future.

Is Harry Kewell better than Totti? He gets paid more than him according to the Independent. You don't think the fact that over half of the highest paid players in the world play in England means anything? Or that nearly half of the richest clubs in the world are English? Players get paid more in England. And once again, I haven't said Dyer isn't overpaid, just that the entire wage bill isn't anything to be worried about. The fact that Totti loves the club probably means he gets paid under market value anyway. I expected people to know that our stewards don't get £30k a week. The point was that if you add up all other wage costs, including the manager, financial advisors, coaches, etc, etc, it will reduce that £35k further. As will taking off Owen's, Dyers (the well paid) wages that skew the average. All i'm saying is the average player isn't overpaid when compared with other, similar clubs, and will be paid less than £30k. I can't possibly know for certain. And I know you didn't argue it but that point also applies to Spurs, if you take their minimum wage earners from their employee wage bill then their average wage will be high. Apologies about the personal stuff.

Ok then. Look at most of the players in that 28 (Here's some just for example - Bramble, Taylor, Huntington, Pattison, Bernard, Harper, Milner, Carr, Babayaro, Ameobi, Sibierski, Edgar). Would you pay them £35k a week? No, and I doubt we do for a lot of that list, which just goes to show how much we ARE overpaying a good chunk of the squad. With your ridiculous argument you've actually provided further evidence that we are paying way over the odds on wages to certain members of the squad. There are maybe 10 or 11 players in the squad that I could reasonably put on £35k+. That the average for the full 28 is £35k tells me something is not right. Anyway, divide the wage bill by whatever number you like. It's still too high as a percentage of turnover. Then use your brain and imagine what the average would be if we stopped paying players over the odds - because whether you like it or not, we ARE paying players over the odds, as you've proven with your little exercise above. Reducing the cost base is key whether the current average wage is £35k or not. Did you decide to stop reading there? lol If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average. That was an oversimplification. Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays? We have something like 800 employees not 28. Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop. And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week? Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet. All players get overpaid in the premier league. Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing. Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us. Now who overpays? I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it. The figures don't bear that out. But not so good with words? Wait a minute daft lad. Are you dividing our total wage bill by 28 or the players' wage bill by 28. You see because when you said "That's excluding wages to the board, management, coaches, stewards, shop workers, cleaners and everyone else employed by the club" I foolishly assumed that you meant what you said. Now you're telling me that you just divided the entire wage bill by 28. Which was a little bit silly, wasn't it? Not as silly as me for assuming that the word "excluding" meant "not including" though, it seems. Tell me again who's not very good with words. If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. It wasn't so unclear was it? I divided the entire wage bill by the 28 players, commented that it was £35k per week and then added that I hadn't included all the other wage earners in that calculation. If I meant the players wage bill why would I mention the board, management team and shop workers? And the players wage bill? Where can I access that then? Unless you work in the finance department of the club there is no way you could have access to it, if it even exists. So why would I use it in an argument? Maybe you should read more carefully or ask for an explantion rather than calling people daft. And why was it silly, I tried to keep the calculations simple. Sadly, not simple enough it seems Employee figures: Ticker: NCU Exchanges: LON 2006 Sales: 90,639,348 Currency: Pounds Sterling Fiscal Year Ends: June Share Type: Ordinary Country: United Kingdom Major Industry: Recreation Sub Industry: Miscellaneous Recreation Employees: 789 Market Capitalization: 83,857,410 Total Shares Outstanding: 133,107,000 Closely Held Shares: 87,302,383 Saying that I might as well have made them up, everyone else does. Is Dyer earning as much as Totti? Links? In 2003 Totti earned £98,000/£73,000/82,000 according to sources (i'll let you find them ) In 2005 Dyer earned £30,000 or so. So in one year, of which he was largely injured we nearly tripled his wage? Or Totti took a wage cut? LOL And that's ignoring the fact (do people not read) that I have consistently said you can't trust none club sources when it comes to wages and I haven't said Dyer isn't overpaid. If I was arguing in a "Dyer overpaid?" thread you might have a (somewhat flimsy) argument.

Ok then. Look at most of the players in that 28 (Here's some just for example - Bramble, Taylor, Huntington, Pattison, Bernard, Harper, Milner, Carr, Babayaro, Ameobi, Sibierski, Edgar). Would you pay them £35k a week? No, and I doubt we do for a lot of that list, which just goes to show how much we ARE overpaying a good chunk of the squad. With your ridiculous argument you've actually provided further evidence that we are paying way over the odds on wages to certain members of the squad. There are maybe 10 or 11 players in the squad that I could reasonably put on £35k+. That the average for the full 28 is £35k tells me something is not right. Anyway, divide the wage bill by whatever number you like. It's still too high as a percentage of turnover. Then use your brain and imagine what the average would be if we stopped paying players over the odds - because whether you like it or not, we ARE paying players over the odds, as you've proven with your little exercise above. Reducing the cost base is key whether the current average wage is £35k or not. Did you decide to stop reading there? lol If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average. That was an oversimplification. Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays? We have something like 800 employees not 28. Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop. And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week? Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet. All players get overpaid in the premier league. Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing. Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us. Now who overpays? I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it. The figures don't bear that out. But not so good with words?

Well I felt it was arrogant stating your job and then stating that you didn't need the disclosure agreements posted when I didn't post any and didn't intend to. You can point out where I'm arrogant if you like, I don't really care. I try to post facts or reasonable opinions and keep any vendetta against the board out of my arguments (not aimed at you). The OP may have had a ? but we aren't limited to responding to the OP, I wanted to address some of the other uninformed comments. I don't have a problem with people saying there is a wage crisis (although I don't agree) so long as it's backed by at least some fact. If you don't think i've added to the debate then fine but I think I have. And if I haven't added anything what have you added? One post about your and others jobs. An 'I can'. They're brilliant contributions . Spurs' financial reports.

A £350m p.a product business for a £30bn p.a company. There are people with post-docs and even accountants in this thread. You cheeky twerp. The legal requirement for disclosure by public limited companies is very limited so unless you work at the club or are mystic meg, it doesn't matter if your Leonhard Euler, you can't comment effectively. Plus if there was such people in this thread they would be able to show that players supposed wages are not as high as people think, and in any case aren't affecting the financial wellbeing of the club. They would also be able to tell us the financial advice such a business would be privy to. But since there are no posts of this nature... Owen isnt on over 100k? Dyer isnt on around 85K? Parker isnt worth less than he is on? Of course i can comment on wages and about the structure of wages within the club. As Dave says, there is an element of speculation but that is backed up on here by every single public utterance by the club and talk in the papers. The public disclosure rules of listed companies are fairly straightforward, i dont need them pointed out really. What exactly is your point in relation to what people have posted? I am aware that there is no 100% certainty about the wage structure but enough is known publicly about what this club pays for people to consider alternative structures. You havent really added to this debate tbh. Owens effectively on £50k actually. When he's on £100k a week he will be playing (hopefully) and contributing to the team. Are people forgetting he effectively is the reason we were in the UEFA cup this year? And no-one outside the club knows the amount he brings in merchandise and exposure and exposure = advertising. Dyer probably is on that but he's a good player and is one of the exceptions to the rule. Parker hasn't fully lived up to expectations which is difficult to predict when discussing contracts. In any case, I don't deny that a handful (and it is a handful) of players are on high wages but the whole point of the thread is that there is a wage crisis. I don't believe there is for one minute. And I don't believe we pay significantly over the odds in general for our player wages. I see spurs are being hailed as financial geniuses. They have less employees than us and still spend over £42 million on staff. If their players are getting so low a wage what are the tea lady's on? 250k a year? Again, people quoting actual salaries for Spurs players without having inside knowledge. What is the point. How can we have a debate when people make up figures? And Spurs' chairman gets paid 50% more than Shepherd. No-one seems to be bothered there either. I would rather be paying money on wages than the chairman. Speculate all you want tbh, I can't stop anyone. I can have a bloody good laugh at the thread though. And when did I point out any disclosure rules? I said they were limited in order to explain that you get given a total and not individual employee figures. No need to get arrogant about it. My point is simple. In my opinion there is no wage crisis or anything like it. The majority of this forum don't know enough about business (i'm not saying I do) and even if you do, unless you have access to Newcastle's accounts, and every other club in the country you can't say Butt, Emre, Taylor or anyone else get paid way over market value.

A £350m p.a product business for a £30bn p.a company. There are people with post-docs and even accountants in this thread. You cheeky twerp. The legal requirement for disclosure by public limited companies is very limited so unless you work at the club or are mystic meg, it doesn't matter if your Leonhard Euler, you can't comment effectively. Plus if there was such people in this thread they would be able to show that players supposed wages are not as high as people think, and in any case aren't affecting the financial wellbeing of the club. They would also be able to tell us the financial advice such a business would be privy to. But since there are no posts of this nature...

The forum wouldn't be as funny as it is that's for sure.

Are you a professional footballer? No? In that case please refrain from commenting on whether anyone was ever 'rubbish' etc. I honestly can't link your post to mine.

If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. That's excluding wages to the board, management, coaches, stewards, shop workers, cleaners and everyone else employed by the club. Changes things when you look at the facts doesn't it? Instead of guessing how much players earn. Mountain out of a mole hill springs to mind. No-one in this thread has a clue how to run a multi-million pound business so I don't know why we're trying to pass judgement on it. Do people think Freddy runs the club from his garage or something? He has teams of financial advisors and lawyers, yet we seem to know better? LOL Ridiculous.

maybe people will think twice before posting s****, I can't stand wading through ill thought out posts with zero logic and forethought, just emotional reactionary tartism Agreed, What a ridiculous thread. There is nothing the players could possibly do to please the people on this forum. They could win a tie in which we twice have a three goal lead? Just a thought. What, with a time machine? This thread is about apologies after the game is it not?

Well that, or the fact that his contract stipulates that he has to do it?

maybe people will think twice before posting s****, I can't stand wading through ill thought out posts with zero logic and forethought, just emotional reactionary tartism Agreed, What a ridiculous thread. There is nothing the players could possibly do to please the people on this forum.

In my opinion some ridiculous posts. We have a paper thin squad as it is and people want to get rid of 6 - 13 players. Crazy. Until we have a larger squad we can't afford to get riid of players. At this point I would only get rid of Carr and Bernard. If we signed other players then of course there are others I want to see out like Baba but until that happens there is little point. The money we would get from selling players like Carr, Baba, Moore, Bramble, Pattison, etc is negligible. As is the wage reduction as a result. All that would happen is fans would be a little happier and as soon a few players got injured we'd be stuck. And as for people wanting to seel Emre, Dyer, Owen, et al. Well, I despair tbh. Edit: forgot Luque lol, I think it goes without saying that he should be sold like.

So you thought Zog was better than Parker?? Whilst i dont always agree with my fellow Gallowgate ender NSG, today i agree that Parker was fecking tripe. As per. I know, he only had the 2 best chances of the game. An average game? Yes Fecking [sic] tripe? Don't be ridiculous.

You may find it funny, most normal people wouldn't. I'm sure Sib didn't find it funny at all. If anyone knows of a complaint procedure i'd gladly help.

Fener played really well on Thursday, they took a 2 goal lead yet AZ Alkmar came back at them, they didn't give up. I don't think we'll beat AZ if they play like they did on Thursday. We beat Liverpool who went on to beat Barcelona, it doesn't mean we'd beat Barcelona. Surely it works the other way as well? We didn't give up against Liverpool when Bellamy scored and they were raining chances on us. We absolutely can beat AZ.

Souness didn't have the second best win percentage of any Newcastle manager though. A disappointing result today but hardly time for the manager to be sacked, it's ridiculous. Edit: the second bit aint aimed at you. Souness probably had the highest win percentage during his first 8 or 9 games, it didn't make him any better than he was. Roeder has a lot of wins against nothing teams in Europe, games against teams that would struggle in a good local league. We raped Spurs and could easily have been slaughtered, we were lucky against Villa and lucky against Liverpool, all games that we could have lost and that sort of result has been typical this season. We played well enough last season but that was as much because of the lift we all had from seeing the end of Souness, everybody from the fans to the players received a massive lift from Souness leaving, Roeder played players where they were best suited to play and most of them responded, they were picked on merit, this season is totally different. Players are just turning up and getting picked, just because they seem to be the chosen few. Roeder has been in charge over a year so not sure why 8 or 9 games of Souness matter. And yes we've been lucky against those teams but we've also been unlucky, e.g. Fulham and Bolton at the start of the season which we deserved to win, it all evens out. A honeymoon period doesn't last that long. Why are people so adverse to complimenting him about anything? When we have a full strength team will his true colours be shown.

Souness didn't have the second best win percentage of any Newcastle manager though. A disappointing result today but hardly time for the manager to be sacked, it's ridiculous. Edit: the second bit aint aimed at you.