tinoasprilla Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Find it hard to believe that with Colocini, Sissoko, Wijnaldum, Krul, Janmaat etc leaving that Gayle, Hanley, Sels, Lazar, Atsu etc came in on bigger wages. If it is true Charnley is to blame for having the negotiation skills of Theresa May. Unless of course we gave McClaren a 50 million golden hand shake Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 How do other clubs manage, don't they have wages to pay as well? Not a serious question, obviously, because we all know the answer already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 100m a year which is close to 2m a week? Even with 20 purples on 50k per week (we don't), it would barely touch that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattoon Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 https://sillyseason.com/list/salaries/premier-league-wages-per-team-69064 Not sure how reliable the information is but it has our wages from 2014-2017 being £68m, £78.3m, £75.8m then £47m Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Wage bill was £112.2m for the season in the Championship. In Ashleys world...in reality it was WELL under 100 million. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 We must be including all of Sports Directs wage bill as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Wage bill was £112.2m for the season in the Championship. In Ashleys world...in reality it was WELL under 100 million. The 112.2m figure included promotion bonuses and "onerous contract provisions" payment to players not in the first team but still employed by the club. So wages are probably around 70-80m total as a base before any bonuses etc. There absolutely should be money available if this was a sane world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Wage bill was £112.2m for the season in the Championship. In Ashleys world...in reality it was WELL under 100 million. The 112.2m figure included promotion bonuses and "onerous contract provisions" payment to players not in the first team but still employed by the club. So wages are probably around 70-80m total as a base before any bonuses etc. There absolutely should be money available if this was a sane world. Well I don't believe that for a second. For one the 'onerous contract provisions' takes into account future years I believe. Also, theres no way our base wage bill is anywhere near 80m. This link suggests less then £50 million for the season after in the Prem: https://talksport.com/football/308730/every-premier-league-club-ranked-their-total-wage-bill-2016-17-171109261432/ Why would anyone give Ashley any benefit of doubt though really? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Wage bill was £112.2m for the season in the Championship. In Ashleys world...in reality it was WELL under 100 million. The 112.2m figure included promotion bonuses and "onerous contract provisions" payment to players not in the first team but still employed by the club. So wages are probably around 70-80m total as a base before any bonuses etc. There absolutely should be money available if this was a sane world. Well I don't believe that for a second. For one the 'onerous contract provisions' takes into account future years I believe. Also, theres no way our base wage bill is anywhere near 80m. This link suggests less then £50 million for the season after in the Prem: https://talksport.com/football/308730/every-premier-league-club-ranked-their-total-wage-bill-2016-17-171109261432/ Why would anyone give Ashley any benefit of doubt though really? https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/accounts-year-ending-30-june-2017 I mean it was in their actual accounts filed so whether or not there was some funky accounting is irrelevant, it's the number out there. But if it accounted for future years then there should be even more left for this year etc. That's all. Anyone quoting over 100m is clearly taking a look at that figure and not realizing the caveats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Fair enough, and I don't believe our accounts as they've been manipulated as much as possible to hide the truth. Our wage bill increased by £38 million during a season in the Championship....not possible. Its accounting tricks as usual with this cunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Fair enough, and I don't believe our accounts as they've been manipulated as much as possible to hide the truth. Our wage bill increased by £38 million during a season in the Championship....not possible. Its accounting tricks as usual with this cunt. no, it increased by about £8m or something and they included £30m to cover the future erroneous contracts bullshit in order to make things look worse than they are on paper that £30m can't be accounted for twice though so over whatever period that £30m applies to our future wages bills must be £30m lower going forward unless i'm a fucking idiot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Wage bill was £112.2m for the season in the Championship. In Ashleys world...in reality it was WELL under 100 million. The 112.2m figure included promotion bonuses and "onerous contract provisions" payment to players not in the first team but still employed by the club. So wages are probably around 70-80m total as a base before any bonuses etc. There absolutely should be money available if this was a sane world. Well I don't believe that for a second. For one the 'onerous contract provisions' takes into account future years I believe. Also, theres no way our base wage bill is anywhere near 80m. This link suggests less then £50 million for the season after in the Prem: https://talksport.com/football/308730/every-premier-league-club-ranked-their-total-wage-bill-2016-17-171109261432/ Why would anyone give Ashley any benefit of doubt though really? https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/accounts-year-ending-30-june-2017 I mean it was in their actual accounts filed so whether or not there was some funky accounting is irrelevant, it's the number out there. But if it accounted for future years then there should be even more left for this year etc. That's all. Anyone quoting over 100m is clearly taking a look at that figure and not realizing the caveats. Writing off the wages is purely an accounting action, we still have to pay the money whilst they are under contract so you really can take this into consideration for the actual wage bill. Having said that we will still have a disproportionately low wage bill for a premier league club simply as the players we buy at the fees we pay won't be on 150k a week and weve not made enough free transfers to suggest that the transfer kitty is being spent on higher wages rather than transfer fres Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Wage bill was £112.2m for the season in the Championship. In Ashleys world...in reality it was WELL under 100 million. The 112.2m figure included promotion bonuses and "onerous contract provisions" payment to players not in the first team but still employed by the club. So wages are probably around 70-80m total as a base before any bonuses etc. There absolutely should be money available if this was a sane world. Well I don't believe that for a second. For one the 'onerous contract provisions' takes into account future years I believe. Also, theres no way our base wage bill is anywhere near 80m. This link suggests less then £50 million for the season after in the Prem: https://talksport.com/football/308730/every-premier-league-club-ranked-their-total-wage-bill-2016-17-171109261432/ Why would anyone give Ashley any benefit of doubt though really? https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/accounts-year-ending-30-june-2017 I mean it was in their actual accounts filed so whether or not there was some funky accounting is irrelevant, it's the number out there. But if it accounted for future years then there should be even more left for this year etc. That's all. Anyone quoting over 100m is clearly taking a look at that figure and not realizing the caveats. Writing off the wages is purely an accounting action, we still have to pay the money whilst they are under contract so you really can take this into consideration for the actual wage bill. Having said that we will still have a disproportionately low wage bill for a premier league club simply as the players we buy at the fees we pay won't be on 150k a week and weve not made enough free transfers to suggest that the transfer kitty is being spent on higher wages rather than transfer fres So how do you enter their wages in the next years accounts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Wage bill was £112.2m for the season in the Championship. In Ashleys world...in reality it was WELL under 100 million. The 112.2m figure included promotion bonuses and "onerous contract provisions" payment to players not in the first team but still employed by the club. So wages are probably around 70-80m total as a base before any bonuses etc. There absolutely should be money available if this was a sane world. Well I don't believe that for a second. For one the 'onerous contract provisions' takes into account future years I believe. Also, theres no way our base wage bill is anywhere near 80m. This link suggests less then £50 million for the season after in the Prem: https://talksport.com/football/308730/every-premier-league-club-ranked-their-total-wage-bill-2016-17-171109261432/ Why would anyone give Ashley any benefit of doubt though really? https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/accounts-year-ending-30-june-2017 I mean it was in their actual accounts filed so whether or not there was some funky accounting is irrelevant, it's the number out there. But if it accounted for future years then there should be even more left for this year etc. That's all. Anyone quoting over 100m is clearly taking a look at that figure and not realizing the caveats. Writing off the wages is purely an accounting action, we still have to pay the money whilst they are under contract so you really can take this into consideration for the actual wage bill. Having said that we will still have a disproportionately low wage bill for a premier league club simply as the players we buy at the fees we pay won't be on 150k a week and weve not made enough free transfers to suggest that the transfer kitty is being spent on higher wages rather than transfer fres So how do you enter their wages in the next years accounts? When you write them off you create a provision on your balance sheet and a loss in the p&l, when you pay cash you reduce the provision by the amount of cash paid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEEJ Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Wage bill was £112.2m for the season in the Championship. In Ashleys world...in reality it was WELL under 100 million. The 112.2m figure included promotion bonuses and "onerous contract provisions" payment to players not in the first team but still employed by the club. So wages are probably around 70-80m total as a base before any bonuses etc. There absolutely should be money available if this was a sane world. Well I don't believe that for a second. For one the 'onerous contract provisions' takes into account future years I believe. Also, theres no way our base wage bill is anywhere near 80m. This link suggests less then £50 million for the season after in the Prem: https://talksport.com/football/308730/every-premier-league-club-ranked-their-total-wage-bill-2016-17-171109261432/ Why would anyone give Ashley any benefit of doubt though really? https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/accounts-year-ending-30-june-2017 I mean it was in their actual accounts filed so whether or not there was some funky accounting is irrelevant, it's the number out there. But if it accounted for future years then there should be even more left for this year etc. That's all. Anyone quoting over 100m is clearly taking a look at that figure and not realizing the caveats. Writing off the wages is purely an accounting action, we still have to pay the money whilst they are under contract so you really can take this into consideration for the actual wage bill. Having said that we will still have a disproportionately low wage bill for a premier league club simply as the players we buy at the fees we pay won't be on 150k a week and weve not made enough free transfers to suggest that the transfer kitty is being spent on higher wages rather than transfer fres So how do you enter their wages in the next years accounts? When you write them off you create a provision on your balance sheet and a loss in the p&l, when you pay cash you reduce the provision by the amount of cash paid Trying to understand this hungover like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 But if we sell the player the provision disappears but the loss on the P&L remains? Or does that get retroactively reduced too? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontownman Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Andre Schurrle. Nufcblogs has outdone themselves this time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlies Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Andre Schurrle. Nufcblogs has outdone themselves this time. seen a tweet from some journo saying that he's in talks with an unnamed PL club, general consensus is that it's Palace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 But if we sell the player the provision disappears but the loss on the P&L remains? Or does that get retroactively reduced too? Anything not paid out gets added back to profit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Mark Douglas (no relation!) asks: Where did the Jorgensen bid money go or the money that we bid for plea go? Isn’t this all very suspect again? ___________ Now this is a good question which I think drills down to the very essence of NUFC’s transfer policy. The version I have been given is that money is there for signings but they have to tick the right boxes and they have to be what the hierarchy (and by that I think we can safely say Justin Barnes is involved here) feels are right for United’s recruitment policy. So they felt Jorgensen - a full international going to the World Cup - was worth £17million (at that point) and Alassane Plea was worth £20million but no more. And that money is not available for other deals because every deal has to be judged on its own merits. It’s effectively trying to get the perfect deal across the line. One of Rafa’s red lines for signing a contract is that he gets full and final say on transfers. So if there’s £30million in the transfer fund, he wants total control over how that’s spent. If it’s £25million on a 31-year-old, he wants permission to spend it that way rather than going through various levels of management before spending it. The other version of it is that United know the bids will fail and so they aren’t serious with them. But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/newcastle-united-news-transfers-live-14935372 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Mark Douglas (no relation!) asks: Where did the Jorgensen bid money go or the money that we bid for plea go? Isn’t this all very suspect again? ___________ Now this is a good question which I think drills down to the very essence of NUFC’s transfer policy. The version I have been given is that money is there for signings but they have to tick the right boxes and they have to be what the hierarchy (and by that I think we can safely say Justin Barnes is involved here) feels are right for United’s recruitment policy. So they felt Jorgensen - a full international going to the World Cup - was worth £17million (at that point) and Alassane Plea was worth £20million but no more. And that money is not available for other deals because every deal has to be judged on its own merits. It’s effectively trying to get the perfect deal across the line. One of Rafa’s red lines for signing a contract is that he gets full and final say on transfers. So if there’s £30million in the transfer fund, he wants total control over how that’s spent. If it’s £25million on a 31-year-old, he wants permission to spend it that way rather than going through various levels of management before spending it. The other version of it is that United know the bids will fail and so they aren’t serious with them. But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/newcastle-united-news-transfers-live-14935372 Fuck the "hierarchy". Wish them all the worst. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Yes. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It's only been ten years. The media towing the line can fuck off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Mark Douglas (no relation!) asks: Where did the Jorgensen bid money go or the money that we bid for plea go? Isn’t this all very suspect again? ___________ One of Rafa’s red lines for signing a contract is that he gets full and final say on transfers. So if there’s £30million in the transfer fund, he wants total control over how that’s spent. If it’s £25million on a 31-year-old, he wants permission to spend it that way rather than going through various levels of management before spending it. https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/newcastle-united-news-transfers-live-14935372 bye rafa, it's been great Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Yes. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It's only been ten years. The media towing the line can fuck off. Sense he was being sarcastic tbf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInfiniteOdyssey Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 https://twitter.com/toontransfer/status/1020732177359822849 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts