The Wage Bill

[Rich]

Baggio:

 

Agree with all of that. One thing I'll add about buying players for 5, 8, 10 years is that it's different here to Man Utd, in that we'd probably lose them 2 or 3 years into their contracts, like Spurs have done with Carrick in particular. If they are that good, then they'll most likely move on before they reach their real peak. Which won't be a problem, as long as we're making profits on them like Spurs have done as well.

 

I'll make it clear here that none of us are saying that we should only buy young players, but if the emphasis is mainly focused on bringing up-and-comers like Modric, Veloso, etc. for the really big money, then that's fair play in my book. The recent Keegan first-team isn't exactly the youngest around, especially in the midfield, and so it's imperative that we do sign some players with time on their side. Of course they may not all work out or be brilliant, but you'd hope that this new scouting network and the new people in charge (Keegan included) will mean the chances of failure are narrowed as much as possible. That's an important point, actually, when comparing with what was done under Shepherd.

 

Like you've said, we need a leader at the back and I think Dunne fits that bill perfectly, so would be quite happy to see him come in (he's only 28, an' all, so he's not exactly over the hill). Deco would be a big gamble, obviously, but could prove to be a masterstroke if he was used properly and still had the hunger there. I'd personally be more inclined to go out and get a "proper" striker at his peak, as well as a centre-half, and then go for the younger ones on top of that. Viduka is paggered and we'll be crying out for someone to come in and take his role up front, it would be a big ask for a youngster to do that for us, especially if they came from abroad.

 

Like others have alluded to, the recent form under Keegan would have seen us right up the top end of the table had it transpired over a larger part of the season, so it's quite exciting to think what he could achieve with new players in for the current weak links like Geremi, Viduka and Taylor.

[Baggio]

Baggio:

 

Agree with all of that. One thing I'll add about buying players for 5, 8, 10 years is that it's different here to Man Utd, in that we'd probably lose them 2 or 3 years into their contracts, like Spurs have done with Carrick in particular. If they are that good, then they'll most likely move on before they reach their real peak. Which won't be a problem, as long as we're making profits on them like Spurs have done as well.

 

I'll make it clear here that none of us are saying that we should only buy young players, but if the emphasis is mainly focused on bringing up-and-comers like Modric, Veloso, etc. for the really big money, then that's fair play in my book. The recent Keegan first-team isn't exactly the youngest around, especially in the midfield, and so it's imperative that we do sign some players with time on their side. Of course they may not all work out or be brilliant, but you'd hope that this new scouting network and the new people in charge (Keegan included) will mean the chances of failure are narrowed as much as possible. That's an important point, actually, when comparing with what was done under Shepherd.

 

Like you've said, we need a leader at the back and I think Dunne fits that bill perfectly, so would be quite happy to see him come in (he's only 28, an' all, so he's not exactly over the hill). Deco would be a big gamble, obviously, but could prove to be a masterstroke if he was used properly and still had the hunger there. I'd personally be more inclined to go out and get a "proper" striker at his peak, as well as a centre-half, and then go for the younger ones on top of that. Viduka is paggered and we'll be crying out for someone to come in and take his role up front, it would be a big ask for a youngster to do that for us, especially if they came from abroad.

 

Like others have alluded to, the recent form under Keegan would have seen us right up the top end of the table had it transpired over a larger part of the season, so it's quite exciting to think what he could achieve with new players in for the current weak links like Geremi, Viduka and Taylor.

 

I think there's always a chance you will lose players if the really big clubs come in for them, Arsenal have lost Flamini to Milan already this season for example but it's making sure you get good value for the player going out and you go about replacing them well.

 

When someone says the club should look to sign young players people automatically think of the likes of Kadar and Tozer who we brought in in the Summer, as you say we're not talking about young lads like that, we're talking about players like Modric and if we were to bring in 4 players of his age and quality then it would put us well on our way to moving back up where we want to be, I think Ashley would be quite right to tell Keegan that any big money should be spent on players 24 or under.

 

As for your comment in the other post about how Keegan must have known what they were aiming to do when he took the job, I think it was a case of Keegan agreeing to it just to get his feet under the table and will now look to go about it a different way instead, Beardsley said something similar in the talk in that Coach went to, I reckon if Keegan did try and force the club to change direction then he'd be the one to go rather than Jimenez or Wise.

[Rich]

You're probably right re: Keegan being the most expendible one, but I shudder at the thought of that day ever arriving.

 

Let's hope the meeting on Friday has done nothing but tighten the ship and put some serious plans down for this summer.

 

Like always, it's about that balance stuff again, people need to flexible. It's fair enough if Keegan has backed down a bit or if Ashley has offered some more cash or whatever, but it's imperative that they are singing from the same hymn sheet.

[Parky]

Haven't we got the 4th highest wage bill in the league?

 

It's reported to be running at between 62-68% of turnover. Ideally you want it around 50%.

[Parky]

Baggio:

 

Agree with all of that. One thing I'll add about buying players for 5, 8, 10 years is that it's different here to Man Utd, in that we'd probably lose them 2 or 3 years into their contracts, like Spurs have done with Carrick in particular. If they are that good, then they'll most likely move on before they reach their real peak. Which won't be a problem, as long as we're making profits on them like Spurs have done as well.

 

I'll make it clear here that none of us are saying that we should only buy young players, but if the emphasis is mainly focused on bringing up-and-comers like Modric, Veloso, etc. for the really big money, then that's fair play in my book. The recent Keegan first-team isn't exactly the youngest around, especially in the midfield, and so it's imperative that we do sign some players with time on their side. Of course they may not all work out or be brilliant, but you'd hope that this new scouting network and the new people in charge (Keegan included) will mean the chances of failure are narrowed as much as possible. That's an important point, actually, when comparing with what was done under Shepherd.

 

Like you've said, we need a leader at the back and I think Dunne fits that bill perfectly, so would be quite happy to see him come in (he's only 28, an' all, so he's not exactly over the hill). Deco would be a big gamble, obviously, but could prove to be a masterstroke if he was used properly and still had the hunger there. I'd personally be more inclined to go out and get a "proper" striker at his peak, as well as a centre-half, and then go for the younger ones on top of that. Viduka is paggered and we'll be crying out for someone to come in and take his role up front, it would be a big ask for a youngster to do that for us, especially if they came from abroad.

 

Like others have alluded to, the recent form under Keegan would have seen us right up the top end of the table had it transpired over a larger part of the season, so it's quite exciting to think what he could achieve with new players in for the current weak links like Geremi, Viduka and Taylor.

 

I think there's always a chance you will lose players if the really big clubs come in for them, Arsenal have lost Flamini to Milan already this season for example but it's making sure you get good value for the player going out and you go about replacing them well.

 

When someone says the club should look to sign young players people automatically think of the likes of Kadar and Tozer who we brought in in the Summer, as you say we're not talking about young lads like that, we're talking about players like Modric and if we were to bring in 4 players of his age and quality then it would put us well on our way to moving back up where we want to be, I think Ashley would be quite right to tell Keegan that any big money should be spent on players 24 or under.

 

As for your comment in the other post about how Keegan must have known what they were aiming to do when he took the job, I think it was a case of Keegan agreeing to it just to get his feet under the table and will now look to go about it a different way instead, Beardsley said something similar in the talk in that Coach went to, I reckon if Keegan did try and force the club to change direction then he'd be the one to go rather than Jimenez or Wise.

 

I agree, I think there were some very general understandings in place and now KK is testing the water.

[Rich]

Haven't we got the 4th highest wage bill in the league?

 

It's reported to be running at between 62-68% of turnover. Ideally you want it around 50%.

 

That was last season in January, wasn't it? Nobody knows the figures now as the club isn't a PLC anymore.

 

All we have to go off is that Mort said £10M was added to it this season... can anyone see our turnover having increased any?

 

The latest figures in the press have been around 80%, but obviously that may be wide of the mark.

[Parky]

Haven't we got the 4th highest wage bill in the league?

 

It's reported to be running at between 62-68% of turnover. Ideally you want it around 50%.

 

That was last season in January, wasn't it? Nobody knows the figures now as the club isn't a PLC anymore.

 

All we have to go off is that Mort said £10M was added to it this season... can anyone see our turnover having increased any?

 

The latest figures in the press have been around 80%, but obviously that may be wide of the mark.

 

Well Leeds went down with 96% or something approaching that and we are some way off those numbers plus we actually own our players and we aren't renting the stadium. Financially I'd rather be where we are than Liverpool or Pompey or Fulham for that matter.

 

80% looks high to me. We did shift Parker 60k and Dyer 80k. 

 

I'd personally get rid of Duff and Viduka who are high earners.

[Rich]

Those two went, but Viduka came in on a very similar amount, some players were given new improved contracts (Milner and N'Zogbia to name but two). Smith will be on a canny wedge coming here over Everton, Beye and Faye are probably making a pretty penny... Yawn. Mort himself has said the wagebill has gone up £10M this season. I have no reason to doubt that, personally, and the turnover has quite probably decreased seeing how we had European football last season.

 

80% is entirely plausible based on that.

[Parky]

Those two went, but Viduka came in on a very similar amount, some players were given new improved contracts (Milner and N'Zogbia to name but two). Smith will be on a canny wedge coming here over Everton, Beye and Faye are probably making a pretty penny... Yawn. Mort himself has said the wagebill has gone up £10M this season. I have no reason to doubt that, personally, and the turnover has quite probably decreased seeing how we had European football last season.

 

80% is entirely plausible based on that.

 

Could be in which case we need to watch it a bit regarding sustainable growth on and off the pitch.

[Rich]

Thankyou for that valuable and insightful input.

 

[Parky]

Thankyou for that valuable and insightful input.

 

 

I'm trying to be sensible...Sure it won't last. 

[Guest nufc_geordie]

With the coming recession add in other factors such as Man utds enormous debt , Ferguson retiring , players moving on from both Chelski , Man U and Arsenal to pastures new..etc and it becomes clear that a new economic model for clubs needs to be adopted, one which places a primacy on youth and only spends big on nailed on certainties , as opposed to "potential"..too many clubs are saddled with huge debts ( dont expect Chelski to be self financing any time soon!).Fortunately , thanks to Ashley we are now debt free , this puts us in a good position to capitalise on the new reality...something we wont do if we merely have a mad Abramovich style spending spree...

 

A very sensible approach in my opinion. I mentioned only the other day that if we can stay self sufficient and run ourselves as a business success is a plausible possibility in the coming years. Liverpool could seriously blow up soon, if Benitez was to leave would Torres, Alonso etc stay? Wenger could leave at anytime, personally I can't see him at Arsenal for another 5 years! Man Utd coul potentially lose Fergie this season if he does the double? We are the prime example of what happens when a successful manager leaves and gets replaced, anything is possible. AZnd finally Chelsea, Roman could walk away if they were to win the Champions League! Football, although predictable can change very quickly. If we run ourselves sustainably we can catch up eventually!

[Guest f***thepress]

Someone on a different thread mentioned that Man U had debts of 764 million as well as a 58 m operating loss last year...that is not serviceable in the long run , neither is Chelski expecting Abramovich to keep pump priming them , Wenger to stay at Arsenal forever, or the situation at Liverpool to just automatically improve.We live in interesting times and some of the top four could just as easily implode over time much like we did post Kev.

[Parky]

Some figures here:

http://www.newcastlefcweb.co.uk/Latest-Newcastle-News/Newcastle_United_finances_laid_bare_.php

 

[Rich]

So we were at 72% after the Owen compensation came in?

 

Oh dear.

[Taylor Swift]

Well, I think our wage bill is actually what's to be expected of a struggling mid-table Premiership team (i.e. one who's looking to punch above this level) atm. Sure, we do have a few underachieving players who aren't obviously worth what we're paying, but the way to fix this problem is not to decrease the wage bill, but actually to increase our turnover.

 

The only way we can significantly reduce our wage bill is if we get rid of all these high-earners. But, we already have a tiny squad as it is and I don't think we can afford an even smaller one if we hope to be challenging for 5th place next season. Who's going to take Viduka, Emre, Duff and Smith anyway?

 

The way Mort should be thinking is that we spend big this summer, bring in top class players who'll want good money, and we take a loss for the year. Fuck it, we might lose £20m in a year but we're speculating to accumulate. If things work out, we'll have Europe for the season after that and it'll be a massive boost to our coffers (£20m iirc). And then we push on from there.

 

If we trim our squad even further this season, we'll only have unproven youngsters as backups and there's no chance we're going to get into Europe with them.

[Rich]

Well, I think our wage bill is actually what's to be expected of a struggling mid-table Premiership team (i.e. one who's looking to punch above this level) atm. Sure, we do have a few underachieving players who aren't obviously worth what we're paying, but the way to fix this problem is not to decrease the wage bill, but actually to increase our turnover.

 

The only way we can significantly reduce our wage bill is if we get rid of all these high-earners. But, we already have a tiny squad as it is and I don't think we can afford an even smaller one if we hope to be challenging for 5th place next season. Who's going to take Viduka, Emre, Duff and Smith anyway?

 

The way Mort should be thinking is that we spend big this summer, bring in top class players who'll want good money, and we take a loss for the year. Fuck it, we might lose £20m in a year but we're speculating to accumulate. If things work out, we'll have Europe for the season after that and it'll be a massive boost to our coffers (£20m iirc). And then we push on from there.

 

If we trim our squad even further this season, we'll only have unproven youngsters as backups and there's no chance we're going to get into Europe with them.

 

Cheers Apisith, I was waiting for someone to come in with this argument, I didn't want to have a discussion with myself to be honest.

 

The speculating to accumulate thing has to be mentioned, even though it's a more high-risk strategy.

 

If what they do is trim the fat like Smith, Duff, Emre, etc. and replace them with players like Modric who command hefty fees but smaller wages, then they'll be starting out on the right track. It's a hell of a lot harder to find players like that, though, rather than to go after the likes of Riise, Crouch, etc.

 

We've been speculating to accumulate for years now, like a gambler who just kept chucking it on and building up a tab. Thing is now, we have an owner who could, by rights, afford to do things that way - and fucking hell it would be a lot more exciting.

 

This is what I hoped this thread would be about, though, to see whether people would back the high-risk strategy over the "Spurs" strategy.

[Parky]

Well, I think our wage bill is actually what's to be expected of a struggling mid-table Premiership team (i.e. one who's looking to punch above this level) atm. Sure, we do have a few underachieving players who aren't obviously worth what we're paying, but the way to fix this problem is not to decrease the wage bill, but actually to increase our turnover.

 

The only way we can significantly reduce our wage bill is if we get rid of all these high-earners. But, we already have a tiny squad as it is and I don't think we can afford an even smaller one if we hope to be challenging for 5th place next season. Who's going to take Viduka, Emre, Duff and Smith anyway?

 

The way Mort should be thinking is that we spend big this summer, bring in top class players who'll want good money, and we take a loss for the year. Fuck it, we might lose £20m in a year but we're speculating to accumulate. If things work out, we'll have Europe for the season after that and it'll be a massive boost to our coffers (£20m iirc). And then we push on from there.

 

If we trim our squad even further this season, we'll only have unproven youngsters as backups and there's no chance we're going to get into Europe with them.

 

I personally would go in heavy this summer and give us a strong chance of qualifying for Europe etc, so I agree with your 3rd para. Profit and income has to be increased and that isn't going to happen with treading water.

[Parky]

Well, I think our wage bill is actually what's to be expected of a struggling mid-table Premiership team (i.e. one who's looking to punch above this level) atm. Sure, we do have a few underachieving players who aren't obviously worth what we're paying, but the way to fix this problem is not to decrease the wage bill, but actually to increase our turnover.

 

The only way we can significantly reduce our wage bill is if we get rid of all these high-earners. But, we already have a tiny squad as it is and I don't think we can afford an even smaller one if we hope to be challenging for 5th place next season. Who's going to take Viduka, Emre, Duff and Smith anyway?

 

The way Mort should be thinking is that we spend big this summer, bring in top class players who'll want good money, and we take a loss for the year. Fuck it, we might lose £20m in a year but we're speculating to accumulate. If things work out, we'll have Europe for the season after that and it'll be a massive boost to our coffers (£20m iirc). And then we push on from there.

 

If we trim our squad even further this season, we'll only have unproven youngsters as backups and there's no chance we're going to get into Europe with them.

 

Cheers Apisith, I was waiting for someone to come in with this argument, I didn't want to have a discussion with myself to be honest.

 

The speculating to accumulate thing has to be mentioned, even though it's a more high-risk strategy.

 

If what they do is trim the fat like Smith, Duff, Emre, etc. and replace them with players like Modric who command hefty fees but smaller wages, then they'll be starting out on the right track. It's a hell of a lot harder to find players like that, though, rather than to go after the likes of Riise, Crouch, etc.

 

We've been speculating to accumulate for years now, like a gambler who just kept chucking it on and building up a tab. Thing is now, we have an owner who could, by rights, afford to do things that way - and fucking hell it would be a lot more exciting.

 

This is what I hoped this thread would be about, though, to see whether people would back the high-risk strategy over the "Spurs" strategy.

 

I still stand by me we need to spend £100m over two windows thread. 

[Rich]

Well, I think our wage bill is actually what's to be expected of a struggling mid-table Premiership team (i.e. one who's looking to punch above this level) atm. Sure, we do have a few underachieving players who aren't obviously worth what we're paying, but the way to fix this problem is not to decrease the wage bill, but actually to increase our turnover.

 

The only way we can significantly reduce our wage bill is if we get rid of all these high-earners. But, we already have a tiny squad as it is and I don't think we can afford an even smaller one if we hope to be challenging for 5th place next season. Who's going to take Viduka, Emre, Duff and Smith anyway?

 

The way Mort should be thinking is that we spend big this summer, bring in top class players who'll want good money, and we take a loss for the year. Fuck it, we might lose £20m in a year but we're speculating to accumulate. If things work out, we'll have Europe for the season after that and it'll be a massive boost to our coffers (£20m iirc). And then we push on from there.

 

If we trim our squad even further this season, we'll only have unproven youngsters as backups and there's no chance we're going to get into Europe with them.

 

I personally would go in heavy this summer and give us a strong chance of qualifying for Europe etc, so I agree with your 3rd para. Profit and income has to be increased and that isn't going to happen with treading water.

 

Why the chuff didn't you say that originally then, you gonk!

 

That way would undoubtedly be a lot more exciting, like, as I've said.

[Parky]

Well, I think our wage bill is actually what's to be expected of a struggling mid-table Premiership team (i.e. one who's looking to punch above this level) atm. Sure, we do have a few underachieving players who aren't obviously worth what we're paying, but the way to fix this problem is not to decrease the wage bill, but actually to increase our turnover.

 

The only way we can significantly reduce our wage bill is if we get rid of all these high-earners. But, we already have a tiny squad as it is and I don't think we can afford an even smaller one if we hope to be challenging for 5th place next season. Who's going to take Viduka, Emre, Duff and Smith anyway?

 

The way Mort should be thinking is that we spend big this summer, bring in top class players who'll want good money, and we take a loss for the year. Fuck it, we might lose £20m in a year but we're speculating to accumulate. If things work out, we'll have Europe for the season after that and it'll be a massive boost to our coffers (£20m iirc). And then we push on from there.

 

If we trim our squad even further this season, we'll only have unproven youngsters as backups and there's no chance we're going to get into Europe with them.

 

I personally would go in heavy this summer and give us a strong chance of qualifying for Europe etc, so I agree with your 3rd para. Profit and income has to be increased and that isn't going to happen with treading water.

 

Why the chuff didn't you say that originally then, you gonk!

 

That way would undoubtedly be a lot more exciting, like, as I've said.

 

I thought you knew I was a slash and burn merchant. 

[Martin Lol]

After doing a bit of digging around, it would appear that it's a problem that all the top clubs in the Premiership are having to contend with... bar everyone's favourites... Spurs.

 

As much as it pains me to say it, the way Spurs have been run since ENIC bought out Sugar looks to have been fairly immaculate. Granted, they missed the boat on qualifying for the Champions' League on the last day a few years back but if they keep up their current progression and they either expand their stadium or move somewhere else they could become a very, very big hitter. They haven't taken many big risks so far, it would appear, but it's a long-term strategy that could be realised if they can increase the size of their stadium. An extra 10 or 20 thousand fans in for every league match will be a massive boost to their coffers and money that can go straight into transfer budgets and wages - and they're already spending a fair whack as it is.

 

Does anyone else get the feeling that the people here are using Spurs more than anyone as a model for how to run a football club?

 

Probably not great for immediate appeasal of the fanbase as regards big signings and big wages, but potentially very sensible in the long-run?

 

It's interesting to see how others view how Spurs as run, though I would be the first to say that there are a number of clubs who are extremely well run, that virtue is not the exclusive realm of Spurs.  As a Spurs fan I'm obviously happy that Levy doesn't take risks with the finances to gain success but as Levy gained a First Class degree in Economics at Cambridge, I really wouldn't expect that type of risktaking to be in his make up.  Yes, he has views on how profits can be achieved and maintained, buying young players with potential to maximise potential profit in the future is one belief he holds dear, but his methods wouldn't necessarily work at other clubs up and down the country.

 

Spurs' season ticket prices are amongst the most expensive in the country, even without a sniff of CL football, and the corporate packages are similarly expensive.  The proposed new stadium is believed to hold initially a maximum of 50k, an increase in capacity of approximately 14k though it could easily be further extended to take 60k if the demand was consistently there.  My belief is that the capacity for Joe Public will only be modestly increased while numbers of corporate boxes could be close to tripling.  Only 14k extra through the turnstiles but gate revenue would more than double.  That's a strategy that may well work well for Spurs but wouldn't necessarily work for other clubs.

 

In short, some parts of Levy's philosophy is tailored simply for Spurs, other parts could be effective with any club in the land.  How to generate income is very much for Spurs, how to control costs (and especially wages) could be taken on board by others.

[Rich]

Well, I think our wage bill is actually what's to be expected of a struggling mid-table Premiership team (i.e. one who's looking to punch above this level) atm. Sure, we do have a few underachieving players who aren't obviously worth what we're paying, but the way to fix this problem is not to decrease the wage bill, but actually to increase our turnover.

 

The only way we can significantly reduce our wage bill is if we get rid of all these high-earners. But, we already have a tiny squad as it is and I don't think we can afford an even smaller one if we hope to be challenging for 5th place next season. Who's going to take Viduka, Emre, Duff and Smith anyway?

 

The way Mort should be thinking is that we spend big this summer, bring in top class players who'll want good money, and we take a loss for the year. Fuck it, we might lose £20m in a year but we're speculating to accumulate. If things work out, we'll have Europe for the season after that and it'll be a massive boost to our coffers (£20m iirc). And then we push on from there.

 

If we trim our squad even further this season, we'll only have unproven youngsters as backups and there's no chance we're going to get into Europe with them.

 

I personally would go in heavy this summer and give us a strong chance of qualifying for Europe etc, so I agree with your 3rd para. Profit and income has to be increased and that isn't going to happen with treading water.

 

Why the chuff didn't you say that originally then, you gonk!

 

That way would undoubtedly be a lot more exciting, like, as I've said.

 

I thought you knew I was a slash and burn merchant. 

 

Should have bolded the bit I meant in particular, I was gagging for someone to state the alternate route.

[Conjo]

Don't forget Luque(60k?), Babayaro(25k?), Bramble(25k?), Sibierski(15k?) and Solano(30k?) who must have been on pretty big wages.

 

Personally I think it sounds strange that the wage bill actually got higher. After the summer I thought it had went down tbh.

[Rich]

Don't forget Luque(60k?), Babayaro(25k?), Bramble(25k?), Sibierski(15k?) and Solano(30k?) who must have been on pretty big wages.

 

Personally I think it sounds strange that the wage bill actually got higher. After the summer I thought it had went down tbh.

 

All the players who went out were replaced, in most cases by people who are probably on bigger wages.

 

Barton will be getting shedloads, Viduka is the 2nd highest paid player at the club, Smith will be earning plenty.

 

Some players got improved contracts, etc. More backroom staff was brought in...