Unbelievable Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think just everything is included in the bottom line TBH, find it hard to argue with that. Seriously? Is there any other club that budgets like this, including future costs in their current net transfer spend? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reefatoon Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Isn't it just the first year of the contract we throw in? Not too sure to be honest. It's obviously not working though, if we can't afford to sign players in the transfer windows. Needs looking at. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think just everything is included in the bottom line TBH, find it hard to argue with that. Seriously? Is there any other club that budgets like this, including future costs in their current net transfer spend? I think we're the only club that announces deals in this fashion in order to deceive the fans and get away with spending as little as possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think just everything is included in the bottom line TBH, find it hard to argue with that. Seriously? Is there any other club that budgets like this, including future costs in their current net transfer spend? Ah soz, might have missed the gist of the argument. I just meant that I don't see any problem with taking all income/outgoings together, rather than treating transfer income as special. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 We should sell Tiote then. His new 5 year contract was paid out of the Carroll money apparently so get rid of him now and we'll get an extra £10m or so on top of the actual transfer fee that we can spend on new players. What? Oh, it only works that way when we're spending money apparently, never mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reefatoon Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 We should sell Tiote then. His new 5 year contract was paid out of the Carroll money apparently so get rid of him now and we'll get an extra £10m or so on top of the actual transfer fee that we can spend on new players. What? Oh, it only works that way when we're spending money apparently, never mind. Crazy isn't it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think just everything is included in the bottom line TBH, find it hard to argue with that. I would find it hard to argue if they also factored in money brought in/saved in the same fashion ie £7m for Ba/£3m ish wages saved off their figure when they did it. At the end of the day it makes zero difference to anything other than to misslead fans. Any actual budgets used would be correctly factored over monthly/annual expenditure after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think just everything is included in the bottom line TBH, find it hard to argue with that. I would find it hard to argue if they also factored in money brought in/saved in the same fashion ie £7m for Ba/£3m ish wages saved off their figure when they did it. At the end of the day it makes zero difference to anything other than to misslead fans. Any actual budgets used would be correctly factored over monthly/annual expenditure after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Cabaye, Jonas, Perch, Simpson, Harper, Ba, Smith, Xisco, Best and Guthrie all off the wage bill in recent years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brazilianbob Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 If you look at the overall wage bill for the first team squad as a seperate entity, then the players we sign have to fit within that wage structure. So if our average wage is £20,000 per week per player (its probably a lot higher), and we have a squad of 25 players, the wage bill for the year is £26m which is a hefty chunck of cash, so its imperative when signing players that we make sure we can afford to pay the wages each year. Bear in mind that this doesnt take into account the wages for the reserve players/academy players who are not part of the first team squad and the wage bill expands even more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Like a wage budget? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Like a wage budget? Is that, like, a real thing? OMG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Who needs a wage budget if can you fund wages all in one go at the time of purchase from the proceeds of player sales? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Every club will do it to plan ahead to make sure the money is there, but not every club will use it as an excuse for not strengthening the squad. I'd like to think they were budgeted for separately like The club = one pot of cash, at the bottom line, whichever pot (or budget) wages are covered by they all ultimately come from the same pot. In simple terms: If the club had income of £100 Mill (including player trading) and costs of £80 Mill, they'd have a cash surplus/profit of £20 Mill If they spent that £20 Mill all on transfer fees and excluded wages, in the next year and the £100 Mill stayed the same, the cost base would increase by the wages of those bought with the £20 Mill, so the amount of cash left in year 2 would be less by that wages amount (and Ashley ain't gonna subsidise anything) and that cost base would grow year on year eroding your turnover margin. So by spending or allocating the £20 Mill over fees and wages, whilst the costs still go up by the wages, they are already covered by the allocated cash reserves from year 1 and so in year 2,3,4 etc. you have a sort of neutral position and still have another £20 Mill, if all stays the same. I think !!! (in theory) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I presume in that theory we continue to spend wages on players we've sold? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I presume in that theory we continue to spend wages on players we've sold? Nope if a player is sold the residual cash reserve (wages not paid) should be available at that point to add to the pot (in theory) In fact the released reserve and drop in costs should be a sort of double benefit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 We always sell before we buy, always. Right from when KK walked after the Milner fiasco. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I presume in that theory we continue to spend wages on players we've sold? Nope if a player is sold the residual cash reserve (wages not paid) should be available at that point to add to the pot (in theory) In fact the released reserve and drop in costs should be a sort of double benefit. So, how big is our "pot" currently? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Kind of a hard discussion when nobody knows what the budget is, what the wage budge is or what any player gets paid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 We always sell before we buy, always. Right from when KK walked after the Milner fiasco. But, in truth, most teams do, if you think about it, unless or until they have an up front surplus from somewhere, be that a loan from a bank or a dip into the owners pocket or saved up profit/cash. Our owner isn't going to dip into his own pocket, therefore until we generate some surplus/cash up front (i.e.have cash in the bank) the only way to generate it is to sell to buy. Given we haven't bought for a year, we shouldn't have to do that any longer tbh. Unless of course he's taking back his loans asap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I presume in that theory we continue to spend wages on players we've sold? Nope if a player is sold the residual cash reserve (wages not paid) should be available at that point to add to the pot (in theory) In fact the released reserve and drop in costs should be a sort of double benefit. So, how big is our "pot" currently? How the fuck am I supposed to know that!!, but it "should" be healthily positive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sempuki Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Should be at least £30m in my opinion not including the BT money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 We always sell before we buy, always. Right from when KK walked after the Milner fiasco. But, in truth, most teams do, if you think about it, unless or until they have an up front surplus from somewhere, be that a loan from a bank or a dip into the owners pocket or saved up profit/cash. Our owner isn't going to dip into his own pocket, therefore until we generate some surplus/cash up front (i.e.have cash in the bank) the only way to generate it is to sell to buy. Given we haven't bought for a year, we shouldn't have to do that any longer tbh. Unless of course he's taking back his loans asap. They don't. And would a TV bonus be on of those things? Course they do, if they don't have the cash from another source, and of course the TV cash is all in the pot (when it's received). We "should" have a very healthy pot, come the summer, unless MA is taking back his loans pronto. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brazilianbob Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 We always sell before we buy, always. Right from when KK walked after the Milner fiasco. But, in truth, most teams do, if you think about it, unless or until they have an up front surplus from somewhere, be that a loan from a bank or a dip into the owners pocket or saved up profit/cash. Our owner isn't going to dip into his own pocket, therefore until we generate some surplus/cash up front (i.e.have cash in the bank) the only way to generate it is to sell to buy. Given we haven't bought for a year, we shouldn't have to do that any longer tbh. Unless of course he's taking back his loans asap. They don't. And would a TV bonus be on of those things? Course they do, if they don't have the cash from another source, and of course the TV cash is all in the pot (when it's received). We "should" have a very healthy pot, come the summer, unless MA is taking back his loans pronto. The sooner he takes back his loans the better. At least that way we will know for certain that he has no intention of improving the playing squad when he continues to trouser the profits generated by the club after all debts have been cleared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 How much do we owe him? 100m? It's looking like the sooner he can remove that from the clubs debts the better we'll look to buyers. 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