ponsaelius Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Holding money back for future transfers when they arise would be fine, if we didn't need to strengthen immediately. It's great having our pulse on the transfer market and hopefully being ready to pounce in the future when players come available (for example Sow went to Lille on a free last year, I'd like to think in the future we'll pounce on that kind of deal) but frankly we need players right now. We're not in a position to hold back funds at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 What exactly is the purpose of setting aside a full contract's worth of wages at this point? Are they expecting revenues to fall dramatically? Exactly. I don't understand the logic behind that at all. We've got a wage bill and budget paying it every year anyway, we're down about 100k a week in wages from exits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 What exactly is the purpose of setting aside a full contract's worth of wages at this point? Are they expecting revenues to fall dramatically? The first year, or even two would be understandable - they are taking this self-suffiency lark a bit far... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 What exactly is the purpose of setting aside a full contract's worth of wages at this point? Are they expecting revenues to fall dramatically? not necessarily but they may be thinking that the players we've brought in this summer will significantly push up the wage bill, best cover it and we won't be scrabbling around for the cash in a year or two's time. like i've said i've tried to get my head round the idea and long term it could work but it would be detrimental in the short term. also a quick work out of the figures makes it seem unlikley, if we do bring in another face or two without losing any. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Exactly. I don't understand the logic behind that at all. We've got a wage bill and budget paying it every year anyway, we're down about 100k a week in wages from exits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Exactly. I don't understand the logic behind that at all. We've got a wage bill and budget paying it every year anyway, we're down about 100k a week in wages from exits. Carroll was on about 30k? Nolan was on 50k? Sol was on about 20k? All estimates but it'd be around that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 What exactly is the purpose of setting aside a full contract's worth of wages at this point? Are they expecting revenues to fall dramatically? The first year, or even two would be understandable - they are taking this self-suffiency lark a bit far... Exactly. I doubt they even expect to keep the likes of Tiote past a couple of years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 i'd like to know what percentage of players wages ie tiotes new deal,cabaye's and the others listed there, are being paid for out if the clubs current funds ? This is starting to get silly. These are things you will never find out. What we need to find out is how many years of the new players' contracts are coming out of the Carroll money... No. No we really don't. If we have a better team next season. If not. Simples! f*** me, finally. yes and no. if we were to marginally improve but have kept money back would you not ask why we didn't use it ? fwiw i don't think they'll take money out but if they are setting aside 5yrs worth of wages now for the new signings i'm not sure if that is the best use of the money. Not really, we need to use money on other things than transfer fees (and even wages), and I don't have a problem with that. I agree with your second point, but I don't see any reason that the club would be keeping a lump sum now to pay for future wages. That doesn't make any sense, they will just budget for the future expenditure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 i'd like to know what percentage of players wages ie tiotes new deal,cabaye's and the others listed there, are being paid for out if the clubs current funds ? This is starting to get silly. These are things you will never find out. What we need to find out is how many years of the new players' contracts are coming out of the Carroll money... No. No we really don't. If we have a better team next season. If not. Simples! f*** me, finally. yes and no. if we were to marginally improve but have kept money back would you not ask why we didn't use it ? fwiw i don't think they'll take money out but if they are setting aside 5yrs worth of wages now for the new signings i'm not sure if that is the best use of the money. Not really, we need to use money on other things than transfer fees (and even wages), and I don't have a problem with that. oh i know that, i mean if thats all taken care and we have funds available after. edit...alos it was about the possibility of how much of the players wages to set aside ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Exactly. I don't understand the logic behind that at all. We've got a wage bill and budget paying it every year anyway, we're down about 100k a week in wages from exits. Carroll was on about 30k? Nolan was on 50k? Sol was on about 20k? All estimates but it'd be around that. But Tiote is probably now on 50k (from 20k?) and I assume that Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye are all on at least 40k per week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 What exactly is the purpose of setting aside a full contract's worth of wages at this point? Are they expecting revenues to fall dramatically? The first year, or even two would be understandable - they are taking this self-suffiency lark a bit far... Or maybe they are doing 1/2 years and its you taking it too far? Even at £25k pw each thats £20m gone on wages for those three without touching about £10m of fees. No chance thats how we are working it imo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Yeah, but that's what I'm saying...why should their contracts be coming completely out of the Carroll fee? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 What exactly is the purpose of setting aside a full contract's worth of wages at this point? Are they expecting revenues to fall dramatically? The first year, or even two would be understandable - they are taking this self-suffiency lark a bit far... Indeed, but there's no way that's happening. What would be the point? We will just be budgeting for the future expenditure, can't believe we're attempting to pay someone's wages for the next 5 years out of a lump sum we're holding onto right now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Yeah, but that's what I'm saying...why should their contracts be coming completely out of the Carroll fee? You said our wages were down £100k a week. Whats that got to do with where it comes from? Imo our wages are up anyway regardless of how they are paid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Yeah, but that's what I'm saying...why should their contracts be coming completely out of the Carroll fee? because we broke even last season and the new wages require pushing the wage bill up type thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Yeah, but that's what I'm saying...why should their contracts be coming completely out of the Carroll fee? You said our wages were down £100k a week. Whats that got to do with where it comes from? Imo our wages are up anyway regardless of how they are paid. People were saying the new players wages will be coming directly out of the Carroll fee. Why is this the case when we've cleared a fair amount of wages anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I assume because they are increased costs to the club and they want to account for them out of the revenue streams coming in. The wage bill has gone up so something needs to cover that. It doesn't really matter 'where' it actually comes from - it just comes from the funds we have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 This kind of discussion just makes me hate Alan Smith even more btw. Useless tosser. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheSummerOf69 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Don't forget they've probably bought some new bibs and cones for training. They don't come cheap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 So how many years of the new players' contracts are we going for? 1 year, 2 years, 5 years? Of course it is relevant, BottledDog - surely you'd like to know how much of the £35m is being spent on new players, this summer? No. Not in the slightest anymore. We should already have put aside a slice of money for this and the last window so focusing on that figure doesn't make much sense to me anyway, it all comes from the same pot in the end. All I know is that it is a good chunk of money that will be invested into the club and will have given us an increased budget to invest in players, and beyond that I think its is pointless trying work out where it all goes. As for those adding caveats that, well we we hoped it would give us a chance to really push the boat out, I would agree. That would be great. With a gambler like Ashley, fingers crossed we may still be surprised, we are already on a more interesting road with the type of players we bring in and the football philosophy than the likes of Sunderland and that is important in my eyes. Were not just playing it safe. Beyond, looking at the accounts and checking that nobody is making a fast buck (and hell we're not even being bummed by the bloke with interest on his loans at the moment), I don't see the point in getting hung up on not being able to see exactly where that £35m goes if we're still see progress on and off the pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I don't know about you, but I am very excited about seeing the water bore in action. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I assume because they are increased costs to the club and they want to account for them out of the revenue streams coming in. The wage bill has gone up so something needs to cover that. It doesn't really matter 'where' it actually comes from - it just comes from the funds we have. Exactly, the new wages aren't "coming out of the Carroll fee", it's just that we need to budget for the wage expenditure in the future. The Carroll Money™ goes into our bank account and all our costs come out. Obviously any players leaving reduces the wage bill, but if the overall objective is to bring the total bill down then it's not as simple as just comparing outgoing player wages to incoming ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 So how many years of the new players' contracts are we going for? 1 year, 2 years, 5 years? Of course it is relevant, BottledDog - surely you'd like to know how much of the £35m is being spent on new players, this summer? No. Not in the slightest anymore. We should already have put aside a slice of money for this and the last window so focusing on that figure doesn't make much sense to me anyway. All I know is that it is a good chunk of money that will be invested into the club and will have given us an increased budget to invest in players, and beyond that I think its is pointless trying work out where it all goes. As for those adding caveats that, well we we hoped it would give us a chance to really push the boat out, I would agree. That would be great. With a gambler like Ashley, fingers crossed we may still be surprised, we are already on a more interesting road with the type of players we bring in and the football philosophy than the likes of Sunderland and that is important in my eyes. Were not just playing it safe. Beyond, looking at the accounts and checking that nobody is making a fast buck (and hell we're not even being bummed by the bloke with interest on his loans at the moment), I don't see the point in getting hung up on not being able to see exactly where that £35m goes, if we still see progress on and off the pitch. Just to say I agree totally with this, said before that this obsession over the Carroll money is pointless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Yeah, but that's what I'm saying...why should their contracts be coming completely out of the Carroll fee? You said our wages were down £100k a week. Whats that got to do with where it comes from? Imo our wages are up anyway regardless of how they are paid. People were saying the new players wages will be coming directly out of the Carroll fee. Why is this the case when we've cleared a fair amount of wages anyway? Because our wage bill before this was already too high for our turnover? We havent reduced that so i guess its their way of subsidising anything over what we should be paying. Imo its only their first years(or two tops) as we have Smith, Shola, Barton, Enrique, Guthrie, Lovenkrands all with contracts running out next summer which will leave us with some breathing space and a very small squad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I would add that I can see some sense in holding some funds back for January even though it's not what we want to hear. The team is going through a drastic overhaul and there's no guarantees it will click from day one. It might be that we will identify a key area which needs strengthening or a player might become available who we would like then. Priorities change quickly in football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts