Guest tollemache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Another question (though nobody's answered the previous two yet): If we displayed more 'ambition' and bought our way up the league, but it meant we ended up spending 85% of our turnover on wages, would you like that? I doubt it but that's not what anybody is asking for. What many supporters want to to see is an NUFC that tries to punch its weight, something more ambitious than the small time mentality we have now. A middle ground that reflects the size of the club, not the owners' bargain basement business philosophy. Oh, and get that SD s*** off the stadium. So as long as we built a squad of value-for-money players to the limit of our sensible expenditure on wages, you'd be happy with that? Because that's as ambitious as it's healthy to be unless you just want a sugar daddy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ? Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club? Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better. We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going. LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills. And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league. There's some homework for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the fucking finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!! As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying fuck about anything but the football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay? Until that starts to happen regularly then that's conjecture. Ba is the only person who has shown any real desire to leave and he was apparently offered terms that would've almost gave him parity with our highest earner. I don't quite understand why the board are coping flack for adopting a sensible wage structure. We've been down the road of paying grossly over inflated salaries to players whose performances and/or ability haven't justified them. It got us into trouble and was clearly unsustainable. Why do it again? Our position in that wages table is being obsessed over but whether 1st, 13th or 20th, it's completely moot. The figure that does count for something is wages to turnover. 70% is hypothesised to be the tipping point between a club that can cope and one that is in danger and we're not a million miles off that. The only way we can really begin to pay more is to increase turnover. I think there are some very justified criticisms of the board, for example the extremely ponderous way we approach transfer windows which seems to be borne out of a belief we can come out on top in the sagas that pass for negotiations nowadays when all evidence points to the fact that clubs are getting wise and preferring to play hard ball with us, but our wage structure? Christ, it's one of the things the current owners have got very, very right. It's flexible enough to allow us to reward players who perform well (as we did with Tiote in his first season and Krul last year) but won't see us get taken for mugs. Stay up and our TV money will go up by a considerable amount while costs should stay fairly stable I guess then we'll see if there is any ambition. Dave too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the f***ing finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!! As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying f*** about anything but the football. Well go find yourself some kind of Meca Shepherd who'll happily run the club into the ground and maybe win a trophy along the way then. Not to care whether the club is in a healthy state or not is pretty fucking daft isn't it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the f***ing finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!! As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying f*** about anything but the football. fans at most clubs do it now after what happened to leeds and pompey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Another question (though nobody's answered the previous two yet): If we displayed more 'ambition' and bought our way up the league, but it meant we ended up spending 85% of our turnover on wages, would you like that? I doubt it but that's not what anybody is asking for. What many supporters want to to see is an NUFC that tries to punch its weight, something more ambitious than the small time mentality we have now. A middle ground that reflects the size of the club, not the owners' bargain basement business philosophy. Oh, and get that SD shit off the stadium. It's very difficult to define that middle point though isn't it? I mean, we already buying people like Cisse and Debuchy... you could argue we have found the middle ground already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay? Until that starts to happen regularly then that's conjecture. Ba is the only person who has shown any real desire to leave and he was apparently offered terms that would've almost gave him parity with our highest earner. I don't quite understand why the board are coping flack for adopting a sensible wage structure. We've been down the road of paying grossly over inflated salaries to players whose performances and/or ability haven't justified them. It got us into trouble and was clearly unsustainable. Why do it again? Our position in that wages table is being obsessed over but whether 1st, 13th or 20th, it's completely moot. The figure that does count for something is wages to turnover. 70% is hypothesised to be the tipping point between a club that can cope and one that is in danger and we're not a million miles off that. The only way we can really begin to pay more is to increase turnover. I think there are some very justified criticisms of the board, for example the extremely ponderous way we approach transfer windows which seems to be borne out of a belief we can come out on top in the sagas that pass for negotiations nowadays when all evidence points to the fact that clubs are getting wise and preferring to play hard ball with us, but our wage structure? Christ, it's one of the things the current owners have got very, very right. It's flexible enough to allow us to reward players who perform well (as we did with Tiote in his first season and Krul last year) but won't see us get taken for mugs. What prize do we win for having the lowest wages to turnover ratio? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Jerusalem Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the fucking finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!! As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying fuck about anything but the football. That's not why most of us are interested in the finances Dave, and I think that you probably know that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ? Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club? Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better. We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going. LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills. And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league. There's some homework for you. No need. Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper already did it in "Why England Lose" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 And i might add, despite what clowns like Hippo Head says. Football is about being entertained, good passing, movement, commited players and winning the odd game. None of which we are seeing. Anyone who thinks football is just about winning, even if the football is putrid has a screw loose imo. Football is a beautiful game, nothing is better and it should be played in a beautiful, or in a decent way at least . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the fucking finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!! As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying fuck about anything but the football. These days? We've been obsessed with them for years. One of the sticks we used to beat Shepherd with was the state of the fucking finances and how unsustainable it all was. The issue here isn't the finances. It's never the finances. If we're not playing well then our supporters will look for a reason and for some reason it always seems to come down to the money. Nowadays we're not spending enough of it and can't attract quality. A few years ago we were spending too much and had a team full of mercenaries as a result. We win and no one gives a fuck about the cash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Another question (though nobody's answered the previous two yet): If we displayed more 'ambition' and bought our way up the league, but it meant we ended up spending 85% of our turnover on wages, would you like that? I doubt it but that's not what anybody is asking for. What many supporters want to to see is an NUFC that tries to punch its weight, something more ambitious than the small time mentality we have now. A middle ground that reflects the size of the club, not the owners' bargain basement business philosophy. Oh, and get that SD s*** off the stadium. It's very difficult to define that middle point though isn't it? I mean, we already buying people like Cisse and Debuchy... you could argue we have found the middle ground already. As long as we are fielding Williamson in nearly all of our matches so far this season I beg to differ on having found that happy middle ground. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ? Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club? Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better. We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going. LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills. And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league. There's some homework for you. No need. Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper already did it in "Why England Lose" Did they also mention the clubs that pay the biggest wages usually do so because they've got a larger turnover and can afford to do so? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the fucking finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!! As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying fuck about anything but the football. You must know this is a fatuous argument Dave. We are on a Newcastle forum discussing our club, and a big part of that is what happens with signings, ticket prices, wages and all of that. And to ignore the limitations of our finances is also stupid, otherwise every club would just be splurging money everywhere because it's impossible to go under, right? I would love to just be interested in football too, but I don't see how you can be when money is such a massive part of the modern game. It's regrettable obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Another question (though nobody's answered the previous two yet): If we displayed more 'ambition' and bought our way up the league, but it meant we ended up spending 85% of our turnover on wages, would you like that? I doubt it but that's not what anybody is asking for. What many supporters want to to see is an NUFC that tries to punch its weight, something more ambitious than the small time mentality we have now. A middle ground that reflects the size of the club, not the owners' bargain basement business philosophy. Oh, and get that SD s*** off the stadium. It's very difficult to define that middle point though isn't it? I mean, we already buying people like Cisse and Debuchy... you could argue we have found the middle ground already. As long as we are fielding Williamson in nearly all of our matches so far this season I beg to differ on having found that happy middle ground. Of course our squad isn't perfect, we need to buy a CB, that's obvious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay? Until that starts to happen regularly then that's conjecture. Ba is the only person who has shown any real desire to leave and he was apparently offered terms that would've almost gave him parity with our highest earner. I don't quite understand why the board are coping flack for adopting a sensible wage structure. We've been down the road of paying grossly over inflated salaries to players whose performances and/or ability haven't justified them. It got us into trouble and was clearly unsustainable. Why do it again? Our position in that wages table is being obsessed over but whether 1st, 13th or 20th, it's completely moot. The figure that does count for something is wages to turnover. 70% is hypothesised to be the tipping point between a club that can cope and one that is in danger and we're not a million miles off that. The only way we can really begin to pay more is to increase turnover. I think there are some very justified criticisms of the board, for example the extremely ponderous way we approach transfer windows which seems to be borne out of a belief we can come out on top in the sagas that pass for negotiations nowadays when all evidence points to the fact that clubs are getting wise and preferring to play hard ball with us, but our wage structure? Christ, it's one of the things the current owners have got very, very right. It's flexible enough to allow us to reward players who perform well (as we did with Tiote in his first season and Krul last year) but won't see us get taken for mugs. What prize do we win for having the lowest wages to turnover ratio? Well done, you've missed my point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ? Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club? Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better. We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going. LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills. And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league. There's some homework for you. No need. Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper already did it in "Why England Lose" Did they also mention the clubs that pay the biggest wages usually do so because they've got a larger turnover and can afford to do so? Yes. Then I look at the table posted above and see us spending 61% of our turnover on wages Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ? Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club? Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better. We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going. LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills. And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league. There's some homework for you. No need. Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper already did it in "Why England Lose" Did they also mention the clubs that pay the biggest wages usually do so because they've got a larger turnover and can afford to do so? Yes. Then I look at the table posted above and see us spending 61% of our turnover on wages Is that an unreasonable amount? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay? Until that starts to happen regularly then that's conjecture. Ba is the only person who has shown any real desire to leave and he was apparently offered terms that would've almost gave him parity with our highest earner. I don't quite understand why the board are coping flack for adopting a sensible wage structure. We've been down the road of paying grossly over inflated salaries to players whose performances and/or ability haven't justified them. It got us into trouble and was clearly unsustainable. Why do it again? Our position in that wages table is being obsessed over but whether 1st, 13th or 20th, it's completely moot. The figure that does count for something is wages to turnover. 70% is hypothesised to be the tipping point between a club that can cope and one that is in danger and we're not a million miles off that. The only way we can really begin to pay more is to increase turnover. I think there are some very justified criticisms of the board, for example the extremely ponderous way we approach transfer windows which seems to be borne out of a belief we can come out on top in the sagas that pass for negotiations nowadays when all evidence points to the fact that clubs are getting wise and preferring to play hard ball with us, but our wage structure? Christ, it's one of the things the current owners have got very, very right. It's flexible enough to allow us to reward players who perform well (as we did with Tiote in his first season and Krul last year) but won't see us get taken for mugs. What prize do we win for having the lowest wages to turnover ratio? take a look at your graph and take out the sugar day clubs and see what those clubs with high wages to turnover done. (villa's a doozy) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malandro Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Another question (though nobody's answered the previous two yet): If we displayed more 'ambition' and bought our way up the league, but it meant we ended up spending 85% of our turnover on wages, would you like that? I doubt it but that's not what anybody is asking for. What many supporters want to to see is an NUFC that tries to punch its weight, something more ambitious than the small time mentality we have now. A middle ground that reflects the size of the club, not the owners' bargain basement business philosophy. Oh, and get that SD s*** off the stadium. It's very difficult to define that middle point though isn't it? I mean, we already buying people like Cisse and Debuchy... you could argue we have found the middle ground already. As long as we are fielding Williamson in nearly all of our matches so far this season I beg to differ on having found that happy middle ground. Of course our squad isn't perfect, we need to buy a CB, that's obvious. Why haven't we bought one then? It's not like our need for a CB hasn't been obvious since we came back up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially... We finished 5th last season. How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top? Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay? Until that starts to happen regularly then that's conjecture. Ba is the only person who has shown any real desire to leave and he was apparently offered terms that would've almost gave him parity with our highest earner. I don't quite understand why the board are coping flack for adopting a sensible wage structure. We've been down the road of paying grossly over inflated salaries to players whose performances and/or ability haven't justified them. It got us into trouble and was clearly unsustainable. Why do it again? Our position in that wages table is being obsessed over but whether 1st, 13th or 20th, it's completely moot. The figure that does count for something is wages to turnover. 70% is hypothesised to be the tipping point between a club that can cope and one that is in danger and we're not a million miles off that. The only way we can really begin to pay more is to increase turnover. I think there are some very justified criticisms of the board, for example the extremely ponderous way we approach transfer windows which seems to be borne out of a belief we can come out on top in the sagas that pass for negotiations nowadays when all evidence points to the fact that clubs are getting wise and preferring to play hard ball with us, but our wage structure? Christ, it's one of the things the current owners have got very, very right. It's flexible enough to allow us to reward players who perform well (as we did with Tiote in his first season and Krul last year) but won't see us get taken for mugs. What prize do we win for having the lowest wages to turnover ratio? Well done, you've missed my point. No I haven't. Wage total in absolute numbers is a pretty good predictor for league position as tollemache correctly argues, wages to turnover ratio isn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Fans rightly have the right to question where the money goes when they are paying sometimes thousand's of pounds on following the team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Another question (though nobody's answered the previous two yet): If we displayed more 'ambition' and bought our way up the league, but it meant we ended up spending 85% of our turnover on wages, would you like that? I doubt it but that's not what anybody is asking for. What many supporters want to to see is an NUFC that tries to punch its weight, something more ambitious than the small time mentality we have now. A middle ground that reflects the size of the club, not the owners' bargain basement business philosophy. Oh, and get that SD s*** off the stadium. It's very difficult to define that middle point though isn't it? I mean, we already buying people like Cisse and Debuchy... you could argue we have found the middle ground already. As long as we are fielding Williamson in nearly all of our matches so far this season I beg to differ on having found that happy middle ground. Of course our squad isn't perfect, we need to buy a CB, that's obvious. Why haven't we bought one then? It's not like our need for a CB hasn't been obvious since we came back up. I don't know, your guess is as good as mine. We've bought a number of players since we came back up so we are obviously spending. There could be a lot of factors. I don't think any fan outside of the super clubs is ever totally happy with the amount of signings and the strength of the squad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 David Icke: how can you look at our first XI and seriously say we 'can't attract quality'? We've JUST signed France's first choice right back for one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts