Guest Knightrider Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. Ok then. Look at most of the players in that 28 (Here's some just for example - Bramble, Taylor, Huntington, Pattison, Bernard, Harper, Milner, Carr, Babayaro, Ameobi, Sibierski, Edgar). Would you pay them £35k a week? No, and I doubt we do for a lot of that list, which just goes to show how much we ARE overpaying a good chunk of the squad. With your ridiculous argument you've actually provided further evidence that we are paying way over the odds on wages to certain members of the squad. There are maybe 10 or 11 players in the squad that I could reasonably put on £35k+. That the average for the full 28 is £35k tells me something is not right. Anyway, divide the wage bill by whatever number you like. It's still too high as a percentage of turnover. Then use your brain and imagine what the average would be if we stopped paying players over the odds - because whether you like it or not, we ARE paying players over the odds, as you've proven with your little exercise above. Reducing the cost base is key whether the current average wage is £35k or not. Did you decide to stop reading there? lol If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average. That was an oversimplification. Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays? We have something like 800 employees not 28. Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop. And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week? Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet. All players get overpaid in the premier league. Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing. Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us. Now who overpays? I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it. The figures don't bear that out. Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers. But not so good with words? You're just speculating tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. Ok then. Look at most of the players in that 28 (Here's some just for example - Bramble, Taylor, Huntington, Pattison, Bernard, Harper, Milner, Carr, Babayaro, Ameobi, Sibierski, Edgar). Would you pay them £35k a week? No, and I doubt we do for a lot of that list, which just goes to show how much we ARE overpaying a good chunk of the squad. With your ridiculous argument you've actually provided further evidence that we are paying way over the odds on wages to certain members of the squad. There are maybe 10 or 11 players in the squad that I could reasonably put on £35k+. That the average for the full 28 is £35k tells me something is not right. Anyway, divide the wage bill by whatever number you like. It's still too high as a percentage of turnover. Then use your brain and imagine what the average would be if we stopped paying players over the odds - because whether you like it or not, we ARE paying players over the odds, as you've proven with your little exercise above. Reducing the cost base is key whether the current average wage is £35k or not. Did you decide to stop reading there? lol If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average. That was an oversimplification. Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays? We have something like 800 employees not 28. Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop. And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week? Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet. All players get overpaid in the premier league. Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing. Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us. Now who overpays? I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it. The figures don't bear that out. Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers. But not so good with words? Everton's wages were £37.0m according to their accounts....Can you explain how ours are so ridiculously high? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 More tea ladies and stewards i think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. Ok then. Look at most of the players in that 28 (Here's some just for example - Bramble, Taylor, Huntington, Pattison, Bernard, Harper, Milner, Carr, Babayaro, Ameobi, Sibierski, Edgar). Would you pay them £35k a week? No, and I doubt we do for a lot of that list, which just goes to show how much we ARE overpaying a good chunk of the squad. With your ridiculous argument you've actually provided further evidence that we are paying way over the odds on wages to certain members of the squad. There are maybe 10 or 11 players in the squad that I could reasonably put on £35k+. That the average for the full 28 is £35k tells me something is not right. Anyway, divide the wage bill by whatever number you like. It's still too high as a percentage of turnover. Then use your brain and imagine what the average would be if we stopped paying players over the odds - because whether you like it or not, we ARE paying players over the odds, as you've proven with your little exercise above. Reducing the cost base is key whether the current average wage is £35k or not. Did you decide to stop reading there? lol If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average. That was an oversimplification. Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays? We have something like 800 employees not 28. Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop. And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week? Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet. All players get overpaid in the premier league. Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing. Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us. Now who overpays? I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it. The figures don't bear that out. Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers. But not so good with words? Wait a minute daft lad. Are you dividing our total wage bill by 28 or the players' wage bill by 28. You see because when you said "That's excluding wages to the board, management, coaches, stewards, shop workers, cleaners and everyone else employed by the club" I foolishly assumed that you meant what you said. Now you're telling me that you just divided the entire wage bill by 28. Which was a little bit silly, wasn't it? Not as silly as me for assuming that the word "excluding" meant "not including" though, it seems. Tell me again who's not very good with words. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Where did you get your 800 strong workforce figure from btw? 800 full time employees seems very high. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 800 does seem high. With an average of £30k a year for 750 employees, thats nearly half the wage bill, leaving 12K a week for 50 people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Where did you get your 800 strong workforce figure from btw? 800 full time employees seems very high. We need to explain the business differeance between fixed costs and manageable variable costs (player wages). How is Dyer earning as much as Totti??? I await your ans should be good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Where did you get your 800 strong workforce figure from btw? 800 full time employees seems very high. From the same vault that brought us this: No-one in this thread has a clue how to run a multi-million pound business so I don't know why we're trying to pass judgement on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 800 does seem high. With an average of £30k a year for 750 employees, thats nearly half the wage bill, leaving 12K a week for 50 people. I think he might be including match day stewards and the gurning mongs that work in the pie shop for 2 hours on a Saturday. They're sure to be putting a serious dent in that £50m a year wage bill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 800 does seem high. With an average of £30k a year for 750 employees, thats nearly half the wage bill, leaving 12K a week for 50 people. I think he might be including match day stewards and the gurning mongs that work in the pie shop for 2 hours on a Saturday. They're sure to be putting a serious dent in that £50m a year wage bill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcjmc Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I know this may seem very random but I knew Liam Atkin a regular from the reserves who never managed to break into the first team, I remember him telling me he was on something like 2,000 a week (again he could of been boasting as he is that sort of lad) but he said that the goal for every lad was to get into the first team not for pride, personal glory or achievement but cause it was the pay day of a lifetime. It just seems to make me worry how we are bringing up the fringe/reserve and acadamy players to be like. They see the luque's of this world going the training sessions drive off in the bentleys and jags to there multi million pound pad, why do these lads wanna then play for the club. The glory or the money? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
koven Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. Ok then. Look at most of the players in that 28 (Here's some just for example - Bramble, Taylor, Huntington, Pattison, Bernard, Harper, Milner, Carr, Babayaro, Ameobi, Sibierski, Edgar). Would you pay them £35k a week? No, and I doubt we do for a lot of that list, which just goes to show how much we ARE overpaying a good chunk of the squad. With your ridiculous argument you've actually provided further evidence that we are paying way over the odds on wages to certain members of the squad. There are maybe 10 or 11 players in the squad that I could reasonably put on £35k+. That the average for the full 28 is £35k tells me something is not right. Anyway, divide the wage bill by whatever number you like. It's still too high as a percentage of turnover. Then use your brain and imagine what the average would be if we stopped paying players over the odds - because whether you like it or not, we ARE paying players over the odds, as you've proven with your little exercise above. Reducing the cost base is key whether the current average wage is £35k or not. Did you decide to stop reading there? lol If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average. That was an oversimplification. Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays? We have something like 800 employees not 28. Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop. And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week? Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet. All players get overpaid in the premier league. Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing. Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us. Now who overpays? I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it. The figures don't bear that out. Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers. But not so good with words? Wait a minute daft lad. Are you dividing our total wage bill by 28 or the players' wage bill by 28. You see because when you said "That's excluding wages to the board, management, coaches, stewards, shop workers, cleaners and everyone else employed by the club" I foolishly assumed that you meant what you said. Now you're telling me that you just divided the entire wage bill by 28. Which was a little bit silly, wasn't it? Not as silly as me for assuming that the word "excluding" meant "not including" though, it seems. Tell me again who's not very good with words. If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. It wasn't so unclear was it? I divided the entire wage bill by the 28 players, commented that it was £35k per week and then added that I hadn't included all the other wage earners in that calculation. If I meant the players wage bill why would I mention the board, management team and shop workers? And the players wage bill? Where can I access that then? Unless you work in the finance department of the club there is no way you could have access to it, if it even exists. So why would I use it in an argument? Maybe you should read more carefully or ask for an explantion rather than calling people daft. And why was it silly, I tried to keep the calculations simple. Sadly, not simple enough it seems Employee figures: Ticker: NCU Exchanges: LON 2006 Sales: 90,639,348 Currency: Pounds Sterling Fiscal Year Ends: June Share Type: Ordinary Country: United Kingdom Major Industry: Recreation Sub Industry: Miscellaneous Recreation Employees: 789 Market Capitalization: 83,857,410 Total Shares Outstanding: 133,107,000 Closely Held Shares: 87,302,383 Saying that I might as well have made them up, everyone else does. 800 does seem high. With an average of £30k a year for 750 employees' date=' thats nearly half the wage bill, leaving 12K a week for 50 people.[/quote'] And why would the average wage be £35k? Why would we have 800 fulltime employees? I thought it would be obvious. Some of these are stewards and cleaners, etc. They'll be lucky if they get more than minimum wage. And you have an important position in a large company? Jesus. That's f****** made up. We need to explain the business differeance between fixed costs and manageable variable costs (player wages). How is Dyer earning as much as Totti??? I await your ans should be good. Is Dyer earning as much as Totti? Links? In 2003 Totti earned £98,000/£73,000/82,000 according to sources (i'll let you find them ) In 2005 Dyer earned £30,000 or so. So in one year, of which he was largely injured we nearly tripled his wage? Or Totti took a wage cut? LOL And that's ignoring the fact (do people not read) that I have consistently said you can't trust none club sources when it comes to wages and I haven't said Dyer isn't overpaid. If I was arguing in a "Dyer overpaid?" thread you might have a (somewhat flimsy) argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Pay them what they're worth - £5 a week Owen would owe US - millions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Dyer is on 70k and Totti argualbly the best player Italy has produced in recent history is on €115,000 about £78k. Beleive what you like this is what these two players currently earn. FACT. FOI Totti did take a wage cut as Roma have been in financial trouble and he does actually LOVE THE CLUB. Bourne out by the fact he has turned down many lucrative transfers over the last few years with 50% wage increases attached. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 So if a large proportion are earning the minimum wage, stating 800 employees is misleading in relation to the millions spent on wages. Most of them dont count. As you have just said. You sure you know which way round your arguing here? Less of the personal stuff, i only said your argument was shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. Ok then. Look at most of the players in that 28 (Here's some just for example - Bramble, Taylor, Huntington, Pattison, Bernard, Harper, Milner, Carr, Babayaro, Ameobi, Sibierski, Edgar). Would you pay them £35k a week? No, and I doubt we do for a lot of that list, which just goes to show how much we ARE overpaying a good chunk of the squad. With your ridiculous argument you've actually provided further evidence that we are paying way over the odds on wages to certain members of the squad. There are maybe 10 or 11 players in the squad that I could reasonably put on £35k+. That the average for the full 28 is £35k tells me something is not right. Anyway, divide the wage bill by whatever number you like. It's still too high as a percentage of turnover. Then use your brain and imagine what the average would be if we stopped paying players over the odds - because whether you like it or not, we ARE paying players over the odds, as you've proven with your little exercise above. Reducing the cost base is key whether the current average wage is £35k or not. Did you decide to stop reading there? lol If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average. That was an oversimplification. Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays? We have something like 800 employees not 28. Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop. And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week? Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet. All players get overpaid in the premier league. Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing. Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us. Now who overpays? I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it. The figures don't bear that out. Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers. But not so good with words? Wait a minute daft lad. Are you dividing our total wage bill by 28 or the players' wage bill by 28. You see because when you said "That's excluding wages to the board, management, coaches, stewards, shop workers, cleaners and everyone else employed by the club" I foolishly assumed that you meant what you said. Now you're telling me that you just divided the entire wage bill by 28. Which was a little bit silly, wasn't it? Not as silly as me for assuming that the word "excluding" meant "not including" though, it seems. Tell me again who's not very good with words. If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. It wasn't so unclear was it? I divided the entire wage bill by the 28 players, commented that it was £35k per week and then added that I hadn't included all the other wage earners in that calculation. If I meant the players wage bill why would I mention the board, management team and shop workers? And the players wage bill? Where can I access that then? Unless you work in the finance department of the club there is no way you could have access to it, if it even exists. So why would I use it in an argument? Maybe you should read more carefully or ask for an explantion rather than calling people daft. And why was it silly, I tried to keep the calculations simple. Sadly, not simple enough it seems Employee figures: Ticker: NCU Exchanges: LON 2006 Sales: 90,639,348 Currency: Pounds Sterling Fiscal Year Ends: June Share Type: Ordinary Country: United Kingdom Major Industry: Recreation Sub Industry: Miscellaneous Recreation Employees: 789 Market Capitalization: 83,857,410 Total Shares Outstanding: 133,107,000 Closely Held Shares: 87,302,383 But you did include those people's wages in your calculation. And then said that you had excluded them, when what you meant was you'd not included them in your divisor. You explained yourself appallingly and your argument remains poor. The more you explain your logic, the less it makes sense. By the way, I reckon the 800 figure actually does include matchday catering etc - i.e. people that are beyond part-time. The football club is the playing staff, the coaching staff, the board, and the administrative staff. Probably a few hundred employees. You can stick your fingers in your ears and claim that we aren't overpaying players all you like btw, but it is common knowledge in football that we offer big money wages to players, paying over the top to secure signings. It needs to stop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
koven Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Dyer is on 70k and Totti argualbly the best player Italy has produced in recent history is on €115,000 about £78k. Beleive what you like this is what these two players currently earn. FACT. FOI Totti did take a wage cut as Roma have been in financial trouble and he does actually LOVE THE CLUB. Bourne out by the fact he has turned down many lucrative transfers over the last few years with 50% wage increases attached. Is Harry Kewell better than Totti? He gets paid more than him according to the Independent. You don't think the fact that over half of the highest paid players in the world play in England means anything? Or that nearly half of the richest clubs in the world are English? Players get paid more in England. And once again, I haven't said Dyer isn't overpaid, just that the entire wage bill isn't anything to be worried about. The fact that Totti loves the club probably means he gets paid under market value anyway. So if a large proportion are earning the minimum wage, stating 800 employees is misleading in relation to the millions spent on wages. Most of them dont count. As you have just said. You sure you know which way round your arguing here? Less of the personal stuff, i only said your argument was s***. I expected people to know that our stewards don't get £30k a week. The point was that if you add up all other wage costs, including the manager, financial advisors, coaches, etc, etc, it will reduce that £35k further. As will taking off Owen's, Dyers (the well paid) wages that skew the average. All i'm saying is the average player isn't overpaid when compared with other, similar clubs, and will be paid less than £30k. I can't possibly know for certain. And I know you didn't argue it but that point also applies to Spurs, if you take their minimum wage earners from their employee wage bill then their average wage will be high. Apologies about the personal stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
koven Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. Ok then. Look at most of the players in that 28 (Here's some just for example - Bramble, Taylor, Huntington, Pattison, Bernard, Harper, Milner, Carr, Babayaro, Ameobi, Sibierski, Edgar). Would you pay them £35k a week? No, and I doubt we do for a lot of that list, which just goes to show how much we ARE overpaying a good chunk of the squad. With your ridiculous argument you've actually provided further evidence that we are paying way over the odds on wages to certain members of the squad. There are maybe 10 or 11 players in the squad that I could reasonably put on £35k+. That the average for the full 28 is £35k tells me something is not right. Anyway, divide the wage bill by whatever number you like. It's still too high as a percentage of turnover. Then use your brain and imagine what the average would be if we stopped paying players over the odds - because whether you like it or not, we ARE paying players over the odds, as you've proven with your little exercise above. Reducing the cost base is key whether the current average wage is £35k or not. Did you decide to stop reading there? lol If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average. That was an oversimplification. Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays? We have something like 800 employees not 28. Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop. And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week? Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet. All players get overpaid in the premier league. Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing. Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us. Now who overpays? I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it. The figures don't bear that out. Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers. But not so good with words? Wait a minute daft lad. Are you dividing our total wage bill by 28 or the players' wage bill by 28. You see because when you said "That's excluding wages to the board, management, coaches, stewards, shop workers, cleaners and everyone else employed by the club" I foolishly assumed that you meant what you said. Now you're telling me that you just divided the entire wage bill by 28. Which was a little bit silly, wasn't it? Not as silly as me for assuming that the word "excluding" meant "not including" though, it seems. Tell me again who's not very good with words. If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. It wasn't so unclear was it? I divided the entire wage bill by the 28 players, commented that it was £35k per week and then added that I hadn't included all the other wage earners in that calculation. If I meant the players wage bill why would I mention the board, management team and shop workers? And the players wage bill? Where can I access that then? Unless you work in the finance department of the club there is no way you could have access to it, if it even exists. So why would I use it in an argument? Maybe you should read more carefully or ask for an explantion rather than calling people daft. And why was it silly, I tried to keep the calculations simple. Sadly, not simple enough it seems Employee figures: Ticker: NCU Exchanges: LON 2006 Sales: 90,639,348 Currency: Pounds Sterling Fiscal Year Ends: June Share Type: Ordinary Country: United Kingdom Major Industry: Recreation Sub Industry: Miscellaneous Recreation Employees: 789 Market Capitalization: 83,857,410 Total Shares Outstanding: 133,107,000 Closely Held Shares: 87,302,383 But you did include those people's wages in your calculation. And then said that you had excluded them, when what you meant was you'd not included them in your divisor. You explained yourself appallingly and your argument remains poor. The more you explain your logic, the less it makes sense. By the way, I reckon the 800 figure actually does include matchday catering etc - i.e. people that are beyond part-time. The football club is the playing staff, the coaching staff, the board, and the administrative staff. Probably a few hundred employees. You can stick your fingers in your ears and claim that we aren't overpaying players all you like btw, but it is common knowledge in football that we offer big money wages to players, paying over the top to secure signings. It needs to stop. No-one else seemed to have a problem with it. I reckon the 800 does include match day catering as well, but then so does Spurs' figures so what's your point? I wasn't suggesting that if I included the stewards and managers pay it would bring the average wage of a player down to £3k a week. But there is no way I can find out what other employees earn so I couldn't work it out any futher. I'm sure you can see this. All I could do is show how much each player would earn if they were the only employees at the club. Then explain that in doing so I hadn't taken into account all the other employees which would reduce the average further. I apologise if it wasn't clear; I'll be sure to simplify more in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. Ok then. Look at most of the players in that 28 (Here's some just for example - Bramble, Taylor, Huntington, Pattison, Bernard, Harper, Milner, Carr, Babayaro, Ameobi, Sibierski, Edgar). Would you pay them £35k a week? No, and I doubt we do for a lot of that list, which just goes to show how much we ARE overpaying a good chunk of the squad. With your ridiculous argument you've actually provided further evidence that we are paying way over the odds on wages to certain members of the squad. There are maybe 10 or 11 players in the squad that I could reasonably put on £35k+. That the average for the full 28 is £35k tells me something is not right. Anyway, divide the wage bill by whatever number you like. It's still too high as a percentage of turnover. Then use your brain and imagine what the average would be if we stopped paying players over the odds - because whether you like it or not, we ARE paying players over the odds, as you've proven with your little exercise above. Reducing the cost base is key whether the current average wage is £35k or not. Did you decide to stop reading there? lol If you would read just the next line I explained how each player is not on £35k a week average. That was an oversimplification. Those players would be on £35k a week if they were the only people employed at the club. Does Harper work in the club shop when Given plays? We have something like 800 employees not 28. Take off the wages of everyone else and that £35 a week is obviously going to drop. And do I think those players deserve to be on even £20k a week? Of course not, but what i'm trying to point out is that it isn't unusual and it isn't detrimental to the clubs financial health, yet. All players get overpaid in the premier league. Some people have said that Spurs are doing the right thing. Well they pay £42 million in wages, have only 300 employees and make less money than us. Now who overpays? I don't know why people think that players wander into a board room and demand £60k a week and get it. The figures don't bear that out. Then you backed this up with a s*** argument which Gemmill has nicely taken apart. Hes also good with numbers. But not so good with words? Wait a minute daft lad. Are you dividing our total wage bill by 28 or the players' wage bill by 28. You see because when you said "That's excluding wages to the board, management, coaches, stewards, shop workers, cleaners and everyone else employed by the club" I foolishly assumed that you meant what you said. Now you're telling me that you just divided the entire wage bill by 28. Which was a little bit silly, wasn't it? Not as silly as me for assuming that the word "excluding" meant "not including" though, it seems. Tell me again who's not very good with words. If you divide are entire wage bill by the 28 or so full time squad players it comes out at about £35k each a week. It wasn't so unclear was it? I divided the entire wage bill by the 28 players, commented that it was £35k per week and then added that I hadn't included all the other wage earners in that calculation. If I meant the players wage bill why would I mention the board, management team and shop workers? And the players wage bill? Where can I access that then? Unless you work in the finance department of the club there is no way you could have access to it, if it even exists. So why would I use it in an argument? Maybe you should read more carefully or ask for an explantion rather than calling people daft. And why was it silly, I tried to keep the calculations simple. Sadly, not simple enough it seems Employee figures: Ticker: NCU Exchanges: LON 2006 Sales: 90,639,348 Currency: Pounds Sterling Fiscal Year Ends: June Share Type: Ordinary Country: United Kingdom Major Industry: Recreation Sub Industry: Miscellaneous Recreation Employees: 789 Market Capitalization: 83,857,410 Total Shares Outstanding: 133,107,000 Closely Held Shares: 87,302,383 But you did include those people's wages in your calculation. And then said that you had excluded them, when what you meant was you'd not included them in your divisor. You explained yourself appallingly and your argument remains poor. The more you explain your logic, the less it makes sense. By the way, I reckon the 800 figure actually does include matchday catering etc - i.e. people that are beyond part-time. The football club is the playing staff, the coaching staff, the board, and the administrative staff. Probably a few hundred employees. You can stick your fingers in your ears and claim that we aren't overpaying players all you like btw, but it is common knowledge in football that we offer big money wages to players, paying over the top to secure signings. It needs to stop. No-one else seemed to have a problem with it. I reckon the 800 does include match day catering as well, but then so does Spurs' figures so what's your point? I wasn't suggesting that if I included the stewards and managers pay it would bring the average wage of a player down to £3k a week. But there is no way I can find out what other employees earn so I couldn't work it out any futher. I'm sure you can see this. All I could do is show how much each player would earn if they were the only employees at the club. Then explain that in doing so I hadn't taken into account all the other employees which would reduce the average further. I apologise if it wasn't clear; I'll be sure to simplify more in the future. Dyer is on 70k and Totti argualbly the best player Italy has produced in recent history is on ?115,000 about £78k. Beleive what you like this is what these two players currently earn. FACT. FOI Totti did take a wage cut as Roma have been in financial trouble and he does actually LOVE THE CLUB. Bourne out by the fact he has turned down many lucrative transfers over the last few years with 50% wage increases attached. Is Harry Kewell better than Totti? He gets paid more than him according to the Independent. You don't think the fact that over half of the highest paid players in the world play in England means anything? Or that nearly half of the richest clubs in the world are English? Players get paid more in England. And once again, I haven't said Dyer isn't overpaid, just that the entire wage bill isn't anything to be worried about. The fact that Totti loves the club probably means he gets paid under market value anyway. So if a large proportion are earning the minimum wage, stating 800 employees is misleading in relation to the millions spent on wages. Most of them dont count. As you have just said. You sure you know which way round your arguing here? Less of the personal stuff, i only said your argument was s***. I expected people to know that our stewards don't get £30k a week. The point was that if you add up all other wage costs, including the manager, financial advisors, coaches, etc, etc, it will reduce that £35k further. As will taking off Owen's, Dyers (the well paid) wages that skew the average. All i'm saying is the average player isn't overpaid when compared with other, similar clubs, and will be paid less than £30k. I can't possibly know for certain. And I know you didn't argue it but that point also applies to Spurs, if you take their minimum wage earners from their employee wage bill then their average wage will be high. Apologies about the personal stuff. I take your point PL players are overpaid in comparison to the Eurropean leagues. I'm also releived you admit Dyer and Newcastle are generally overpaid/overpaying even by PL standards. Good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 We're wasting our time arguing this one out tbh. I think the ratio of our wage bill to our turnover is a concern. And I've seen someone (not you) claim that this will be rectified this season because of the UEFA Cup - well we're not gonna be in Europe next season. So if the only time we can achieve a "sensible" wages to turnover ratio is when we're in Europe then we've got an even bigger problem. In my opinion, we pay these players far too much just to get them to sign, and once you do that you're fucked - if they play well, they expect improved contracts, if they play poorly, you can't shift them because no one else will match their wages. The number of players that we've had problems shifting because no one else will match their wages is proof enough that we are paying above market rate - how many times do you hear the "wages will be a problem" comment when players are set to leave NUFC. I think it's something that needs sorting out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest devlin_adl Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Employee figures: Ticker: NCU Exchanges: LON 2006 Sales: 90,639,348 Currency: Pounds Sterling Fiscal Year Ends: June Share Type: Ordinary Country: United Kingdom Major Industry: Recreation Sub Industry: Miscellaneous Recreation Employees: 789 Market Capitalization: 83,857,410 Total Shares Outstanding: 133,107,000 Closely Held Shares: 87,302,383 Saying that I might as well have made them up, everyone else does. According to the Annual Report for 2005 (the 2006 doesn't seem to be up on the website), Newcastle United employed 307 full time staff. There were another 963 part-time staff (presumably stewards and the like). This is down from 360 full-time and 1,016 part-time staff in 2004. You can check the figures for yourself at page 29 of the Annual Report. To suggest that the part-time staff would be 20k a years seems a little disingenuous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 No one was suggesting that i dont think, we were just discussing the right denominator for the wage bill to reflect average wages amongst the proper/footballing staff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 If we could secure cheap and lower wage direct replacements for the majority of our players, I'd take it, even some of our better players can be replaced for less imo. For example: Harper -> Krul (save £15,000) Emre -> Sidwell (save £25,000) Butt -> Chelsea/Arsenal loanee (save £30,000) Bramble -> Onyewu (save £10,000) Moore -> Edgar (save £10,000) Luque -> Anyone (save £40,000+) That would save a hell of a lot of wages, some of which could bereinvested into the defensive positions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 If we could secure cheap and lower wage direct replacements for the majority of our players, I'd take it, even some of our better players can be replaced for less imo. For example: Harper -> Krul (save £15,000) Emre -> Sidwell (save £25,000) Butt -> Chelsea/Arsenal loanee (save £30,000) Bramble -> Onyewu (save £10,000) Moore -> Edgar (save £10,000) Luque -> Anyone (save £40,000+) That would save a hell of a lot of wages, some of which could bereinvested into the defensive positions. Good thinking. blueyes.gif 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