Ameritoon Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 If some of these things said are true, it does seem like GolfMag was correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Why is it always said "for players and wages" surely we arent paying the whole lot upfront ? With AC, Sol Campbell, Nolan etc all leaving doesnt that then free up the money for salaries for the players we are bringing in? This never seems to get mentioned, am i missing something or is the net result of our spending so far next to nothing. It does get mentioned. Theyre obviously taking into account the money for the full length of the contracts for some reason, which given that theyre signing near everyone on 5 years is much more to put aside than the cost & length of the ones that have gone. For some reason our gate receipts/tv money etc over the next 5 years isnt being taken into account as covering the new players wages. The only decent reason for that would be if theyre barely covering our current running costs as it is. I dont know if that is true. But surely we would have been still paying Nolan/AC or their replacements wages in 5 years time, its just different personel. Its still costing the same in the long run, except maybe a small variation in wages, so i cant see how the people we have signed thus far have cost us anything we wouldnt have been already laying out. Will we actually spend any of the money we received for AC on additional players? They wouldnt factor in the wages past the length of the contract though. If they came to extend the contract, im guessing theyd probably then at that point figure in that extra expense over the next few years & use that as a reason not to spend in other places. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 We're supposed to have been running at a loss havent we. 47m was wages, but our overall expenses in 2010 was 74m. Compared to our turnover of 52m. Take into account that figure for extra tv money this year & then whatever the fee's were for Ben Arfa/Tiote etc and we'd probably be quite close to breaking even this year. Then you have 35m from the Carroll sale, which theyre now using to fully cover signings/wages in advance so that our future expenses wont outweigh the turnover if that stays the same. Right? Our overall loss after player trading on the last figures was £17m. I'm by no means an expert on the finances but considering it was widely reported that we received £30m up front for Carroll, without some serious spending in the rest of the transfer window and/or January I'm not sure how we will fail to post a significant profit next time around. Unless someone can explain how the wage bill has increased massively since the last set of figures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Recoba Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 If the club is being ridiculous about the Carroll money they could claim to have spent almost the lot according to this guesstimate. Carroll Fee 35,000,000 Carroll Contract 6,552,000 Tiote Contract -16,900,000 Cabaye Fee -4,800,000 Cabaye Contract -13,000,000 Nolan Fee 4,000,000 Nolan Contract 4,368,000 Ba Agent fee -2,000,000 Ba Contract -5,460,000 Marveaux Contract -13,000,000 -5,240,000 But what we actually spend in 11/12; Carroll Fee 35,000,000 Carroll Contract 1,456,000 Tiote Contract -2,600,000 Cabaye Fee -4,800,000 Cabaye Contract -2,600,000 Nolan Fee 4,000,000 Nolan Contract 2,184,000 Ba Agent fee -2,000,000 Ba Contract -1,820,000 Marveaux Contract -2,600,000 26,220,000 I mean it's not like we pay our players contracts up front! Should easily be £25 million to spend on transfer fees AND wages for the coming season. That means 2 x £10 million players on £50K per week. Not saying we have to spend this amount but it should be available for say . . Zog and a decent striker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzza Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Every club works on the same principal of Gate Receipt = Payment of player wages/staff/maintenance etc Transfer fees received = transfer Botty to spend Always has been since the beginning of time!! Why anyone is bothering to look into what the 35M equates to is beyond me. The simple answer in layman terms is: "We've been hoodwinked" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 I'll preface this by saying I'm not defending Mike and Co., but just because that's how clubs have been run doesn't mean it's the right way. If football clubs were actual businesses the vast majority of them would have gone under years ago. I can understand including the wages for the coming season, but beyond that does seem very extreme to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzza Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 For a club to be run efficiently it should have a wages to gate receipt ratio of around 50%. I take my hat off to the fat man for implementing this business caveat! But as far as transfers are concerned he should at least spend 15-20M of the Carrol money, don't mind him taking the rest, but that's how it should be FFS!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Recoba Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 I'll preface this by saying I'm not defending Mike and Co., but just because that's how clubs have been run doesn't mean it's the right way. If football clubs were actual businesses the vast majority of them would have gone under years ago. I can understand including the wages for the coming season, but beyond that does seem very extreme to me. I agree. Including the current season we can easily afford a couple of quality players before any further outgoings. And that's forgetting Campbell is off the wage bill, Sky money, gate receipts etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maze Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Whatever you say, we don't know the exact numbers behind anything. Secondly, we also know Ashley and Llambas can't be trusted. 3. We do not own the club, guess who does? .. and then look back,and ask yourself: has complaining about it helped? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 So what would the net result of this Transfer window have been if we hadnt flogged AC? Surely we couldnt have limped through another window spending nowt? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Dancer Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Our bezza Colin tweeing about Defoe. As things stand I wouldn't mind him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Our bezza Colin tweeting Might start deleting posts that contain this. Getting beyond a joke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlacknWhiteArmy Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Our bezza Colin tweeting Might start deleting posts that contain this. Getting beyond a joke. You know it makes sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Dancer Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 I'm not suggesting I believe him for one second. Twitter transfer bollocks thread means post Twitter transfer bollocks in my eyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Our bezza Colin tweeting Might start deleting posts that contain this. Getting beyond a joke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Such a dumb rumor too. As if we'd pay the fee Spurs would want and take on his wages. At least make up things that are somewhat believable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Our bezza Colin tweeting Might start deleting posters that contain this. Getting beyond a joke. Fair enough I say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 1. Our bezza Colin tweeing about Defoe. 2. As things stand I wouldn't mind him. See, this I don't understand. 1. you know it's clearly bollocks because it's from a proven bullshitter know nowt, yet 2. you start to consider the signing. I know this is the thread for bullshit but giving this cunt attention still annoys me. Someone said the other day he has 4,000 followers? FUCK MY LIFE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 It did appear that we were prepared to spend big money on Gervinho and Gameiro. Unfortuanately, the more expensive players are likely to be chased by clubs in the Champions or Europa Leagues, and it then becomes difficult to compete. We could of course do an Owen and make ridiculous bids and offer silly wages in order to overcome the player's reluctance to join. We could also pay the same kind of fees for players who aren't worth it, just for the sake of spending the money. Neither sound sensible to me. We're competing with clubs in the top half of the table but outside the European places, like Liverpool and Everton. On that basis, we've done pretty well. If we only sign another striker, we'll still end up with a signficantly stronger squad, especially taking into account the return of Ben Arfa and Gosling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Mark Douglas says Chelsea want £20m for Sturridge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Dancer Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Well what? I know we won't sign him, the fact that bell even sugested it proves we won't. Also Levy rips peoples eyeballs out in terms of player sales. However, I wouldn't mind Defoe. Criminal? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Mark Douglas says Chelsea want £20m for Sturridge. I would pay that tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Nasri is at £20m it be unhealthy to pay £20m for Sturridge. Although I really do hope we sign him, but the prices these days are unreal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Mark Douglas says Chelsea want £20m for Sturridge. Don't think they'll get that. Those clubs who're able to pay that amount of cash need a striker that's capable of scoring enough goals to take them to CL or Europe asap, and Sturridge is not that kind of player, yet. But I think he will be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mofo Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 My mate who works for someone who knows someone close to mike ashleys Doctor seems to think Defo will sign tomorrow. Now I know for a fact this lad doesn't talk shit. If he does not sign by lunch time tomorrow you can drink a pint of my piss. Link to post 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