Wages crisis?

[Parky]

Our overall wage bill for 2006 was £52.6m, that against a turnover of £83.1m. 

 

Surely this is fresh madness, we can't carry on sustaining these kind of wage levels, especially without CL football.

 

In 2002 the wage bill was £32m....Who the fuck did we hire Jacko?!

[shido]

I blame luque...

[juniatmoko]

Owen, Emre, Parker, Duff, Martin.... also included

[Nobby]

owen luque martins emre parker duff, as well as increases on everyone elses

[Rich]

Our overall wage bill for 2006 was £52.6m, that against a turnover of £86m. 

 

Surely this is fresh madness, we can't carry on sustaining these kind of wage levels, especially without CL football.

 

In 2002 the wage bill was £32m....Who the fuck did we hire Jacko?!

 

I think 50% of turnover on wages has been generally accepted as the "ceiling" in the Premiership, hasn't it? Which,obviously equates to £43m of that £86m and does show us as having gone over it by over 10% (11% I think), which is a bit of a worry (thanks Graeme/Freddy!) But then, I suppose that's what desperation does to you and I suppose that's why we've had less money than normal to spend.

 

However, since then I assume that our wages have come down a fair bit, rather than gone up, in that we've seen the exits of big-earnes such as Shearer, Boumsong and Bowyer, along with the likes of Faye, Chopra, Elliott and not to mention that I'd suggest we're spending a bit less on staff wages with Roeder and Co. against what Souness' mob were getting. Martins and Duff will be on decent wages, but I doubt Sibierski and Bernard are getting paid too much - so I'm fairly confident the £52.6m figure (if correct) will be less for 2007 - against a higher turnover. Onyewu is here now as well, of course.

 

This season we will have seen increased revenue from being in Europe, which should put our turnover up by a fair few million on top of that and should help push us back under the "50% threshold" - not to mention the extra TV revenue next season which will again cover it.

 

To me it seems like a risk that Freddy felt had to be taken in order to ensure our PL status and it's one that has affected our ability in the transfer market since then, but should now be getting back to normal with the wage bill having been reduced and with the extra revenue coming in. I'm not sure he can be blamed too aggressively for it, because the club has maintained a fairly average level and has had European football this season in order to cover it.

 

In a way, although I'm certainly no expert, it seems to be a gamble that worked for the club as much as it harmed it.

 

By the way, was our turnover in 2002 higher than £86m?

[Parky]

Our overall wage bill for 2006 was £52.6m, that against a turnover of £86m. 

 

Surely this is fresh madness, we can't carry on sustaining these kind of wage levels, especially without CL football.

 

In 2002 the wage bill was £32m....Who the fuck did we hire Jacko?!

 

I think 50% of turnover on wages has been generally accepted as the "ceiling" in the Premiership, hasn't it? Which,obviously equates to £43m of that £86m and does show us as having gone over it by over 10% (11% I think), which is a bit of a worry (thanks Graeme/Freddy!) But then, I suppose that's what desperation does to you and I suppose that's why we've had less money than normal to spend.

 

However, since then I assume that our wages have come down a fair bit, rather than gone up, in that we've seen the exits of big-earnes such as Shearer, Boumsong and Bowyer, along with the likes of Faye, Chopra, Elliott and not to mention that I'd suggest we're spending a bit less on staff wages with Roeder and Co. against what Souness' mob were getting. Martins and Duff will be on decent wages, but I doubt Sibierski and Bernard are getting paid too much - so I'm fairly confident the £52.6m figure (if correct) will be less for 2007 - against a higher turnover. Onyewu is here now as well, of course.

 

This season we will have seen increased revenue from being in Europe, which should put our turnover up by a fair few million on top of that and should help push us back under the "50% threshold" - not to mention the extra TV revenue next season which will again cover it.

 

To me it seems like a risk that Freddy felt had to be taken in order to ensure our PL status and it's one that has affected our ability in the transfer market since then, but should now be getting back to normal with the wage bill having been reduced and with the extra revenue coming in. I'm not sure he can be blamed too aggressively for it, because the club has maintained a fairly average level and has had European football this season in order to cover it.

 

In a way, although I'm certainly no expert, it seems to be a gamble that worked for the club as much as it harmed it.

 

By the way, was our turnover in 2002 higher than £86m?

 

2002 was £70.9m

 

 

As a percentage Leeds had got to 68% and according to some sources Bradford had got to 78% of wages per turnover ratio. But the Leeds figures are still contended to this day in that they bought players in a strange manner.

[Guest Gemmill]

The biggest problem facing the club at the minute imo.  Both in terms of the effect on finances and the effect on players - a lad like Steven Taylor should NOT be able to buy an £800k house on a 4 year mortgage at the age of 19, but I'm told by a good friend of his that that's exactly what he did.  Scott Parker should not be on £60 or £70k a week - he's simply not good enough to earn that sort of money.  Kieron Dyer should not be on the reported £80k a week that he's on - again, not good enough.  Michael Owen should not be on £115k a week.

 

If you can't attract these players without completely blowing any sort of wage budget that you have, then you can't attract these players full stop.  We can out-pay most of the Premiership without going to the ridiculous lengths that we have to secure signings.  It's a problem that you can create very quickly but which is going to take years to put right.

[Parky]

The biggest problem facing the club at the minute imo.  Both in terms of the effect on finances and the effect on players - a lad like Steven Taylor should NOT be able to buy an £800k house on a 4 year mortgage at the age of 19, but I'm told by a good friend of his that that's exactly what he did.  Scott Parker should not be on £60 or £70k a week - he's simply not good enough to earn that sort of money.  Kieron Dyer should not be on the reported £80k a week that he's on - again, not good enough.  Michael Owen should not be on £115k a week.

 

If you can't attract these players without completely blowing any sort of wage budget that you have, then you can't attract these players full stop.  We can out-pay most of the Premiership without going to the ridiculous lengths that we have to secure signings.  It's a problem that you can create very quickly but which is going to take years to put right.

 

Spot on Gemma. This if we're not very careful will sow the seeds of our downfall. Shocked by the Taylor story btw.

[Isegrim]

The biggest problem facing the club at the minute imo.  Both in terms of the effect on finances and the effect on players - a lad like Steven Taylor should NOT be able to buy an £800k house on a 4 year mortgage at the age of 19, but I'm told by a good friend of his that that's exactly what he did.  Scott Parker should not be on £60 or £70k a week - he's simply not good enough to earn that sort of money.  Kieron Dyer should not be on the reported £80k a week that he's on - again, not good enough.  Michael Owen should not be on £115k a week.

 

If you can't attract these players without completely blowing any sort of wage budget that you have, then you can't attract these players full stop.  We can out-pay most of the Premiership without going to the ridiculous lengths that we have to secure signings.  It's a problem that you can create very quickly but which is going to take years to put right.

Financial lunacy, the best indicator for an ambitious board...

 

How we could give certain players vastly improved contracts despite them not having done anything to earn them is totally beyond my level of understanding.

 

Anyway.... "planning".  bluelaugh.gif

[Slugsy]

The biggest problem facing the club at the minute imo.  Both in terms of the effect on finances and the effect on players - a lad like Steven Taylor should NOT be able to buy an £800k house on a 4 year mortgage at the age of 19, but I'm told by a good friend of his that that's exactly what he did.  Scott Parker should not be on £60 or £70k a week - he's simply not good enough to earn that sort of money.  Kieron Dyer should not be on the reported £80k a week that he's on - again, not good enough.  Michael Owen should not be on £115k a week.

 

If you can't attract these players without completely blowing any sort of wage budget that you have, then you can't attract these players full stop.  We can out-pay most of the Premiership without going to the ridiculous lengths that we have to secure signings.  It's a problem that you can create very quickly but which is going to take years to put right.

 

I quite agree.

 

I've been told some very interesting stories on good authority re some of these players spending and in particular, gambling, and it makes me sick at the wages these guys are getting to be able to do some of the things they can/attitudes they have. 

 

Value for money - methinks not

 

Long term financial health - most definetely not!

[Rich]

Our overall wage bill for 2006 was £52.6m, that against a turnover of £86m. 

 

Surely this is fresh madness, we can't carry on sustaining these kind of wage levels, especially without CL football.

 

In 2002 the wage bill was £32m....Who the fuck did we hire Jacko?!

 

I think 50% of turnover on wages has been generally accepted as the "ceiling" in the Premiership, hasn't it? Which,obviously equates to £43m of that £86m and does show us as having gone over it by over 10% (11% I think), which is a bit of a worry (thanks Graeme/Freddy!) But then, I suppose that's what desperation does to you and I suppose that's why we've had less money than normal to spend.

 

However, since then I assume that our wages have come down a fair bit, rather than gone up, in that we've seen the exits of big-earnes such as Shearer, Boumsong and Bowyer, along with the likes of Faye, Chopra, Elliott and not to mention that I'd suggest we're spending a bit less on staff wages with Roeder and Co. against what Souness' mob were getting. Martins and Duff will be on decent wages, but I doubt Sibierski and Bernard are getting paid too much - so I'm fairly confident the £52.6m figure (if correct) will be less for 2007 - against a higher turnover. Onyewu is here now as well, of course.

 

This season we will have seen increased revenue from being in Europe, which should put our turnover up by a fair few million on top of that and should help push us back under the "50% threshold" - not to mention the extra TV revenue next season which will again cover it.

 

To me it seems like a risk that Freddy felt had to be taken in order to ensure our PL status and it's one that has affected our ability in the transfer market since then, but should now be getting back to normal with the wage bill having been reduced and with the extra revenue coming in. I'm not sure he can be blamed too aggressively for it, because the club has maintained a fairly average level and has had European football this season in order to cover it.

 

In a way, although I'm certainly no expert, it seems to be a gamble that worked for the club as much as it harmed it.

 

By the way, was our turnover in 2002 higher than £86m?

 

2002 was £70.9m

 

The way you worded the initial post made it seem like the turnover was around the same, but the wage-bill was vastly inferior. Hence why I asked.

 

Still a fair jump to go from what must be around 45% to 61% over 4 years, though. However, like I said in that post, surely being in Europe and reducing the wage bill this season will have taken us back down to a fairly sane operating level again? Cannot help but feel that in this instance, it's not as bad as you're trying to make it seem. Especially with the increased turnover next term from the new television money - although it's a shame a good chunk of that will pay for wages of players already on the books, rather than simply financing new signings like it will for almost every other club.

 

Like Gemmill says, when there are a few players getting paid exuberant amounts it makes it very difficult to build a SQUAD to compete, rather than just a team. With the players Gem mentions and the reported wages they are getting (he didn't even mention bonuses!) it is going to make it difficult for us to buy a good number of players AND keep the wages under the 50% marker in order to get to where we are supposed to be.

 

Unlike the teams like Spurs, who probably have a fairly even spread of wages, we're going to have to rely on some young players on comparitively small wages to "fill out" the squad, if we want to keep the wages below 50%.

[The Bonk]

The only way we're going to attract players, is paying them high wages.  We've been shite since Sir Bobby left, what else is going to attract them to our club?  The Peter Ramage welcome fruit basket doesn't cut it anymore. 

[ChezGiven]

Give them all pay-cuts but slap high transfer fees on their heads. Need a good employment lawyer. Ise?

[Parky]

Our overall wage bill for 2006 was £52.6m, that against a turnover of £86m. 

 

Surely this is fresh madness, we can't carry on sustaining these kind of wage levels, especially without CL football.

 

In 2002 the wage bill was £32m....Who the fuck did we hire Jacko?!

 

I think 50% of turnover on wages has been generally accepted as the "ceiling" in the Premiership, hasn't it? Which,obviously equates to £43m of that £86m and does show us as having gone over it by over 10% (11% I think), which is a bit of a worry (thanks Graeme/Freddy!) But then, I suppose that's what desperation does to you and I suppose that's why we've had less money than normal to spend.

 

However, since then I assume that our wages have come down a fair bit, rather than gone up, in that we've seen the exits of big-earnes such as Shearer, Boumsong and Bowyer, along with the likes of Faye, Chopra, Elliott and not to mention that I'd suggest we're spending a bit less on staff wages with Roeder and Co. against what Souness' mob were getting. Martins and Duff will be on decent wages, but I doubt Sibierski and Bernard are getting paid too much - so I'm fairly confident the £52.6m figure (if correct) will be less for 2007 - against a higher turnover. Onyewu is here now as well, of course.

 

This season we will have seen increased revenue from being in Europe, which should put our turnover up by a fair few million on top of that and should help push us back under the "50% threshold" - not to mention the extra TV revenue next season which will again cover it.

 

To me it seems like a risk that Freddy felt had to be taken in order to ensure our PL status and it's one that has affected our ability in the transfer market since then, but should now be getting back to normal with the wage bill having been reduced and with the extra revenue coming in. I'm not sure he can be blamed too aggressively for it, because the club has maintained a fairly average level and has had European football this season in order to cover it.

 

In a way, although I'm certainly no expert, it seems to be a gamble that worked for the club as much as it harmed it.

 

By the way, was our turnover in 2002 higher than £86m?

 

2002 was £70.9m

 

The way you worded the initial post made it seem like the turnover was around the same, but the wage-bill was vastly inferior. Hence why I asked.

 

Still a fair jump to go from what must be around 45% to 61% over 4 years, though. However, like I said in that post, surely being in Europe and reducing the wage bill this season will have taken us back down to a fairly sane operating level again? Cannot help but feel that in this instance, it's not as bad as you're trying to make it seem. Especially with the increased turnover next term from the new television money - although it's a shame a good chunk of that will pay for wages of players already on the books, rather than simply financing new signings like it will for almost every other club.

 

Like Gemmill says, when there are a few players getting paid exuberant amounts it makes it very difficult to build a SQUAD to compete, rather than just a team. With the players Gem mentions and the reported wages they are getting (he didn't even mention bonuses!) it is going to make it difficult for us to buy a good number of players AND keep the wages under the 50% marker in order to get to where we are supposed to be.

 

Unlike the teams like Spurs, who probably have a fairly even spread of wages, we're going to have to rely on some young players on comparitively small wages to "fill out" the squad, if we want to keep the wages below 50%.

 

Good post. I guess my real thrust is that for the quality of player we have we cannot justify these wages and on the whole these lads are taking the piss and it is good time we offloaded some of these. Another hidden cost we have in relation to players is that as is well known in the industry we pay some of the highest agent fees as well. Love to see what those are!

 

If pushed on this issue, I'd be honest and say for quality players we have to sometimes pay over the odds in wages and bonuses if we are going to get back into contention for the top 4. You make a good point about the tv deals to come and I'd like to see a good chunk of that going to erase our debt and finance a few very good players. I can't help feeling something is very wrong with this clubs finances..........

[Guest Gemmill]

The only way we're going to attract players, is paying them high wages.  We've been shite since Sir Bobby left, what else is going to attract them to our club?  The Peter Ramage welcome fruit basket doesn't cut it anymore. 

 

High wages is one thing.  Fucking batshit crazy insano wages are another.  The sort of wages we are paying Scott Parker - this lad is not a superstar, yet we offered him mad wages to stop him signing for someone else.  We have to stop this sort of thing.  Dyer getting an improved contract when he'd barely played a game - why?? 

 

I've said it in another thread but in the next round of contract negotiations I would be offering them all reduced contracts.  We can do that and still be paying them more than they can get elsewhere.  Tell them to either accept or gamble on getting better money elsewhere - but caution them against just listening to their agent's tales of boundless riches elsewhere.  I'd tell them to talk to Olivier Bernard about how that sort of thing works out.

 

Then leave it with them.  If they leave, they leave, and we free up millions of pounds on the wage bill.  Better that than continue to support these below standard players on vastly inflated wages.

[Parky]

Big clubs in debt and wages scenarios...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/football/6388041.stm

 

It is worth nothing that in the accounts, Manchester United's debt is interestingly presented, or rather not. The figures released show the club's profits tripling to £30m under the Glazers and their total income rising to £165.4m.

 

However, what these accounts do not show is the debt of £700m, as this debt is part of the ultimate holding company.

 

Unlike Arsenal, or what Liverpool will get into, Manchester United did not incur debt to build a new stadium. Their owners did so in order to take over a club they thought they could lead forward.

 

 

 

 

Arsenal:

 

However, take a look at the Arsenal salary curve. This shows that during those six months the salaries went up by £12m.

 

Given that this period saw some high earners like Ashley Cole, Sol Campbell and Robert Pires leave, this must represent the cost of some new contracts.

 

Thierry Henry is now said to be on £5m a year, while money also had to be found for a new contract for Cesc Fabregas and the wages to attract William Gallas.

[ChezGiven]

The only way we're going to attract players, is paying them high wages.  We've been shite since Sir Bobby left, what else is going to attract them to our club?  The Peter Ramage welcome fruit basket doesn't cut it anymore. 

 

High wages is one thing.  Fucking batshit crazy insano wages are another.  The sort of wages we are paying Scott Parker - this lad is not a superstar, yet we offered him mad wages to stop him signing for someone else.  We have to stop this sort of thing.  Dyer getting an improved contract when he'd barely played a game - why?? 

 

I've said it in another thread but in the next round of contract negotiations I would be offering them all reduced contracts.  We can do that and still be paying them more than they can get elsewhere.  Tell them to either accept or gamble on getting better money elsewhere - but caution them against just listening to their agent's tales of boundless riches elsewhere.  I'd tell them to talk to Olivier Bernard about how that sort of thing works out.

 

Then leave it with them.  If they leave, they leave, and we free up millions of pounds on the wage bill.  Better that than continue to support these below standard players on vastly inflated wages.

 

I'd love to have that conversation with some of them. Dyer and Parker in particular. Neither should be on more than 40K.

[Parky]

The only way we're going to attract players, is paying them high wages.  We've been shite since Sir Bobby left, what else is going to attract them to our club?  The Peter Ramage welcome fruit basket doesn't cut it anymore. 

 

High wages is one thing.  Fucking batshit crazy insano wages are another.  The sort of wages we are paying Scott Parker - this lad is not a superstar, yet we offered him mad wages to stop him signing for someone else.  We have to stop this sort of thing.  Dyer getting an improved contract when he'd barely played a game - why?? 

 

I've said it in another thread but in the next round of contract negotiations I would be offering them all reduced contracts.  We can do that and still be paying them more than they can get elsewhere.  Tell them to either accept or gamble on getting better money elsewhere - but caution them against just listening to their agent's tales of boundless riches elsewhere.  I'd tell them to talk to Olivier Bernard about how that sort of thing works out.

 

Then leave it with them.  If they leave, they leave, and we free up millions of pounds on the wage bill.  Better that than continue to support these below standard players on vastly inflated wages.

 

 

Looks to me like Owen earns more than Henry.

[James]

We get £30m extra TV income starting from next season, so things aren't all that bad.

[Guest alex]

So does everybody else.

[Parky]

We get £30m extra TV income starting from next season, so things aren't all that bad.

 

.....but wages are going down at most PL clubs.

 

http://www.eufootball.biz/Finance/Premier_League_wages_decrease_for_first_time.html

 

"Wage and salary costs fell by GBP 26 million in 2004-2005, bucking the trend over the past decade for Premier League salaries to increase by 20 percent year to year. The reduction was equivalent to each club cutting wages by GBP 1.3 million.

 

At Chelsea, wages fell by GBP 5.9 million. Arsenal’s dropped by GBP 3.9 million, Everton by GBP 2.3 million, and Liverpool, despite victory in the Champions League, fell GBP 1.4 million. Even Tottenham Hotspur, active in the transfer market that season, cut off GBP 1.4 million.

 

Premier League clubs believe that television revenue, which will be raised another GBP 500 million to GBP 1.7 billion during the next three-year cycle starting with 2007-08, will equal more money going to players.

 

“We can already see this effect, with new contracts for Thierry Henry, Frank Lampard and John Terry all in the GBP 130,000-a-week bracket,” said one chief executive for a top club. “Arsenal, moving into a new, 60,000-capacity stadium, obviously feel they can afford it - Manchester United’s capacity has also increased. There are new sponsorship deals, and players' agents will have noted that in addition to what Sky and Setanta will pay us we are also doing some great deals for other rights. Our main overseas deal is yet to be done.” "

[Rich]

So does everybody else.

 

That's the real crux of the matter, as Alex has alluded to. While we might have to use the £30m to pay wages of players already on our books and in order to compensate for being out of Europe, clubs with far inferior wage-bills can use the money to BUY quality players and increase their wage-limits, as well.

 

Could leave us further behind a lot of clubs, unfortunately.

[Guest Gemmill]

The only way we're going to attract players, is paying them high wages.  We've been shite since Sir Bobby left, what else is going to attract them to our club?  The Peter Ramage welcome fruit basket doesn't cut it anymore. 

 

High wages is one thing.  Fucking batshit crazy insano wages are another.  The sort of wages we are paying Scott Parker - this lad is not a superstar, yet we offered him mad wages to stop him signing for someone else.  We have to stop this sort of thing.  Dyer getting an improved contract when he'd barely played a game - why?? 

 

I've said it in another thread but in the next round of contract negotiations I would be offering them all reduced contracts.  We can do that and still be paying them more than they can get elsewhere.  Tell them to either accept or gamble on getting better money elsewhere - but caution them against just listening to their agent's tales of boundless riches elsewhere.  I'd tell them to talk to Olivier Bernard about how that sort of thing works out.

 

Then leave it with them.  If they leave, they leave, and we free up millions of pounds on the wage bill.  Better that than continue to support these below standard players on vastly inflated wages.

 

I'd love to have that conversation with some of them. Dyer and Parker in particular. Neither should be on more than 40K.

 

Shepherd should love doing it too tbh. 

 

I'd love to sit in front of player and agent, offer him the reduced wage and when the player looks to his agent to argue his corner (as he definitely will cos they're too thick to do it themselves), cut the agent off, and tell him to keep his mouth shut while I point out to the player (MY employee) that his agent has one interest - making money for himself.  And that as soon as I put that reduced wage on the table, the agent saw one thing - ££££ signs at the prospect of securing himself a big slice of any signing on fee that the player makes for moving to a new club - any club, be it a lesser club or not, what does the agent care.  I'd caution him that any advice he receives from this point on from his agent would be with the agent's best interests in mind, and not the players. 

 

The likes of Dyer and Parker, you could feasibly say to them - "where do you think you're going to go that's a step up from here?  Nowhere.  But whatever club he can find that shows an interest, your agent will advise you that that move is the right one for your career when what he really means is that it's the right one for his wallet.  Now go away and think about your career and not his wallet, and let me know your decision in the morning."

 

God I'm fucking NAILS aren't I?

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

Our overall wage bill for 2006 was £52.6m, that against a turnover of £83.1m. 

 

Surely this is fresh madness, we can't carry on sustaining these kind of wage levels, especially without CL football.

 

In 2002 the wage bill was £32m....Who the fuck did we hire Jacko?!

 

but, but, you want Roeder out so a new manager can come in and sign new players on new contracts..../\....\o/....

[Karjala]

Where are we in the Total Wages league? I presume Chelsea and Man U shell out more than us, probably Arsenal and i'd guess we spend more the Liverpool?