I noted the 'Directors' (on assumes the chairmen) are now going to reschedule the FF meeting which is good news.
Fortune, ZZ, Hudson also big earners off the wage bill, with Moo2 and Gray off now too its a bit of a concern we are still the highest or have I read it wrong? Also Holland and Fleetwood.
I am guessing new contracts for Bailey and Shelvey plus wages for the new free players hasn't helped
I don't think it'll be a surprise to anyone here that we have the highest wage bill. However after shifting out Fortune, ZZ, Hudson, Ambrose, Gray and Weaver it's certainly a lot better than we were paying out.
The article mentions Moo2 going helped the wage bill though. I can't imagine he was on big money and if he was then he certainly wouldn't be at Motherwell as Scottish clubs pay peanuts.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]Moo2 is reported to have been on high wages, though relative to what who knows. I guess by current standards that would be 10kplus
That was quted by Parkie, when talking about moving a player out who was one of the top wage earners in the club, but not near the team. I supppose we would have had to pay him decent wages to persuade him to turn down Barcelona for us.
[cite]Posted By: Chris_from_Sidcup[/cite]I don't think it'll be a surprise to anyone here that we have the highest wage bill. However after shifting out Fortune, ZZ, Hudson, Ambrose, Gray and Weaver it's certainly a lot better than we were paying out.
The article mentions Moo2 going helped the wage bill though. I can't imagine he was on big money and if he was then he certainly wouldn't be at Motherwell as Scottish clubs pay peanuts.
It may well be that we are still paying SOME of Moo 2's wages.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]I am guessing new contracts for Bailey and Shelvey plus wages for the new free players hasn't helped
When did Bailey get a new contract? I know it was mentioned on here, but wasn't it just a rumour? The club confirmed Shelvey signed an extension, but haven't mentioned any other players signing a new deal or extension.
As for Moutaouakil - of course he'll be on big wages. He signed when we came down from the Prem, was meant to be our new first choice right back. Motherwell are most likely only paying some of his wages.
Semedo, Bailey, McLeod, Youga, Racon and Sam must all be on big wages for League One. When they signed, they were meant to play big parts in taking us back to the Prem. In the case of Youga, he signed a new contract last summer and was going to be our first choice left back. Sam signed a 4 year deal when Dowie came in. Some of those players might even have clauses that mean their wages go up every year (Shelvey probably does, as a complete guess), and are any likely to have a wage decrease for relegation to League One? Seems unlikely to me.
Would agree Bailey and Semedo likely some of the top earners, not sure of the rest. I recall Fortune was given a 4 year premiership contract by Dowie..
Not top earners no, but surely on big wages in League One terms. We wouldn't have paid over £1m for McLeod for example then only give him £1-2k a week. Fleetwood is rumoured to be on £4k, that lot are surely on at least that probably more.
[cite]Posted By: Scoham[/cite]Not top earners no, but surely on big wages in League One terms. We wouldn't have paid over £1m for McLeod for example then only give him £1-2k a week. Fleetwood is rumoured to be on £4k, that lot are surely on at least that probably more.
aye but don't forget he was in league 2 at the time, take your point tho
Not rocket Science Boys is it the so Called Big Clubs in League One :-
Norwich, Southampton, Charlton & Leeds
Two have recently been in administration & will be very guarded about new player contracts & Norwich despite their support have never been huge payers. As for the rest of the league everyone is broke, so no real surprise it's us. To give you an idea. We are probably still about Halfway or higher compared to the rest of the Championship as well.
Think our actual Wage bill is about £8M this year which is about a 50% reduction on last season.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Scoham[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]I am guessing new contracts for Bailey and Shelvey plus wages for the new free players hasn't helped[/quote] When did Bailey get a new contract? I know it was mentioned on here, but wasn't it just a rumour? The club confirmed Shelvey signed an extension, but haven't mentioned any other players signing a new deal or extension.
As for Moutaouakil - of course he'll be on big wages. He signed when we came down from the Prem, was meant to be our new first choice right back. Motherwell are most likely only paying some of his wages.
[/quote]
I'm not sure that Bailey did sign a new contract, but I wonder if being made club captain triggers an extra few quid per week?
[cite]Posted By: PL54[/cite]10,000 STs at £275 = £2,750,000
5,000 Tickets per game at £15 = £1,725,000
Which means they'd need £3.5M from other activities to break even which, as a guess,I would say is unlikely
They'd need more than that - wages aren't the only overhead that goes with running a football club, although it's obviously the biggest factor.
If anything, baring in mind the list of players that are now off the books, this illustrates just how overstretched we were by Championship standards. Perhaps in hindsight we'd have been better starting to cut our cloth by (non parachute payment) Championship standards from the moment we were relegated from the Prem, giving us two years to get it straight, which is what the paracute payments are for. Instead we re (and over) invested it in poor players and left the serious financial re-structuring to this summer, or at least until Pardew was sacked.
[cite]Posted By: Exiled_Addick[/cite]If anything, baring in mind the list of players that are now off the books, this illustrates just how overstretched we were by Championship standards. Perhaps in hindsight we'd have been better starting to cut our cloth by (non parachute payment) Championship standards from the moment we were relegated from the Prem, giving us two years to get it straight, which is what the paracute payments are for. Instead we re (and over) invested it in poor players and left the serious financial re-structuring to this summer, or at least until Pardew was sacked.
The mistake quite a few clubs seem to have made. Clubs like West Brom are fine, they never stay in the Prem long enough to build up a huge wage bill. Most clubs that come down after several seasons in the Prem want to get back up soon as possible, so when they get it wrong, like us, you're in trouble.
Don't forget players are on long contracts making a lot of the restructuring difficult, particularly if there are no buyers or their wages are too high to match elsewhere
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]Don't forget players are on long contracts making a lot of the restructuring difficult, particularly if there are no buyers or their wages are too high to match elsewhere
This is were clubs need to get together a claw back some of the power - players currently get all the benefits of the money in football and none of the risk. If they want huge salaries, let it be on short term deals with clauses protecting the club in the event of relegation - if they want the freedom of the bosman ruling then clubs need some protection for if they're circumstance change.
As it is players know they're in short supply and that someone else with give them what they want - it's about time the clubs said a collective 'No' and started to get to grips with things a bit
As it is players know they're in short supply and that someone else with give them what they want - it's about time the clubs said a collective 'No' and started to get to grips with things a bit
...........
If you shortened the contracts of players and forcibly inserted relegation clauses then you'd get more and not fewer players leaving on free transfers, or being sold cheaply before they left on free transfers. That means you'd get rid of the injury prone dross, but you'd also lose a few good players or have them sold for well below their market value. In life you often get what you negotiate and you have to take a few punts on reasonably long contracts without too many clauses, but for every restriction that the club imposes you'd have to expect a few clauses that potentially benefit the player.
As an aside, none of the Newcastle players had relegation clauses written into their contracts, but then I don't suppose they expected to be in the bottom half/third of the table, let alone in the relegation zone.
[cite]Posted By: Exiled_Addick[/cite]As it is players know they're in short supply and that someone else with give them what they want - it's about time the clubs said a collective 'No' and started to get to grips with things a bit
Really? There's been and still are players out of work. I doubt anyone believed that by September Fortune and Holland would still be without a club, and Zheng Zhi took until the end of August to find one. Clubs are being careful with who they sign, and there must be a lot of players out there that can't just ask for what they want, they won't find a club otherwise.
[cite]Posted By: Scoham[/cite]
Really? There's been and still are players out of work. I doubt anyone believed that by September Fortune and Holland would still be without a club, and Zheng Zhi took until the end of August to find one. Clubs are being careful with who they sign, and there must be a lot of players out there that can't just ask for what they want, they won't find a club otherwise.
Sorry, I was talking in terms of the Premiership - there's an almost limitless supply of players if you include anyone who regularly turns out for an 11 a-side football team, but there are very few who are up to Premiership standard football. If Stoke, for example, want to stay up they need good players - but do the good players need Stoke, when Blackburn, Bolton, Wolves etc would probably gladly take them on so they can say 'pay me X or I go elsewhere' because elsewhere will pay it. If the clubs took a bit more of a collective stand you wouldn't get so many overstretching themsleves because they could force the market rate down - anything is only worth what someone wil pay for it.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]If you shortened the contracts of players and forcibly inserted relegation clauses then you'd get more and not fewer players leaving on free transfers, or being sold cheaply before they left on free transfers.
This is a fair point and one I did think of, I guess the long contracts wouldn't be such an issue as long as clauses existed to force players to take a bit of a wage cut if the club is relegated. In return perhaps there could be a minimum fee release clause in each players contract so clubs can't block them from moving back nto the Premiership as long as they get a decent transfer fee.
for every restriction that the club imposes you'd have to expect a few clauses that potentially benefit the player.
Don't necessarily agree with this though - players currently have 90% of the power imo. They should certainly have powers, but maybe they hold too much right now.
Comments
Fortune, ZZ, Hudson also big earners off the wage bill, with Moo2 and Gray off now too its a bit of a concern we are still the highest or have I read it wrong? Also Holland and Fleetwood.
I am guessing new contracts for Bailey and Shelvey plus wages for the new free players hasn't helped
Heath Hero - like it
so long as we stay top nobody (directors, banks or fans) will be too fussed about the wage bill
The article mentions Moo2 going helped the wage bill though. I can't imagine he was on big money and if he was then he certainly wouldn't be at Motherwell as Scottish clubs pay peanuts.
That was quted by Parkie, when talking about moving a player out who was one of the top wage earners in the club, but not near the team. I supppose we would have had to pay him decent wages to persuade him to turn down Barcelona for us.
It may well be that we are still paying SOME of Moo 2's wages.
Anybody "in the know" who can advise?
As for Moutaouakil - of course he'll be on big wages. He signed when we came down from the Prem, was meant to be our new first choice right back. Motherwell are most likely only paying some of his wages.
Semedo, Bailey, McLeod, Youga, Racon and Sam must all be on big wages for League One. When they signed, they were meant to play big parts in taking us back to the Prem. In the case of Youga, he signed a new contract last summer and was going to be our first choice left back. Sam signed a 4 year deal when Dowie came in. Some of those players might even have clauses that mean their wages go up every year (Shelvey probably does, as a complete guess), and are any likely to have a wage decrease for relegation to League One? Seems unlikely to me.
aye but don't forget he was in league 2 at the time, take your point tho
Norwich, Southampton, Charlton & Leeds
Two have recently been in administration & will be very guarded about new player contracts & Norwich despite their support have never been huge payers. As for the rest of the league everyone is broke, so no real surprise it's us. To give you an idea. We are probably still about Halfway or higher compared to the rest of the Championship as well.
Think our actual Wage bill is about £8M this year which is about a 50% reduction on last season.
Is that just players or football staff (or even other staff??)?
5,000 Tickets per game at £15 = £1,725,000
Which means they'd need £3.5M from other activities to break even which, as a guess,I would say is unlikely
When did Bailey get a new contract? I know it was mentioned on here, but wasn't it just a rumour? The club confirmed Shelvey signed an extension, but haven't mentioned any other players signing a new deal or extension.
As for Moutaouakil - of course he'll be on big wages. He signed when we came down from the Prem, was meant to be our new first choice right back. Motherwell are most likely only paying some of his wages.
[/quote]
I'm not sure that Bailey did sign a new contract, but I wonder if being made club captain triggers an extra few quid per week?
They'd need more than that - wages aren't the only overhead that goes with running a football club, although it's obviously the biggest factor.
If anything, baring in mind the list of players that are now off the books, this illustrates just how overstretched we were by Championship standards. Perhaps in hindsight we'd have been better starting to cut our cloth by (non parachute payment) Championship standards from the moment we were relegated from the Prem, giving us two years to get it straight, which is what the paracute payments are for. Instead we re (and over) invested it in poor players and left the serious financial re-structuring to this summer, or at least until Pardew was sacked.
Playing Staff.
As it is players know they're in short supply and that someone else with give them what they want - it's about time the clubs said a collective 'No' and started to get to grips with things a bit
seems obvious, no?
...........
If you shortened the contracts of players and forcibly inserted relegation clauses then you'd get more and not fewer players leaving on free transfers, or being sold cheaply before they left on free transfers. That means you'd get rid of the injury prone dross, but you'd also lose a few good players or have them sold for well below their market value. In life you often get what you negotiate and you have to take a few punts on reasonably long contracts without too many clauses, but for every restriction that the club imposes you'd have to expect a few clauses that potentially benefit the player.
As an aside, none of the Newcastle players had relegation clauses written into their contracts, but then I don't suppose they expected to be in the bottom half/third of the table, let alone in the relegation zone.
Sorry, I was talking in terms of the Premiership - there's an almost limitless supply of players if you include anyone who regularly turns out for an 11 a-side football team, but there are very few who are up to Premiership standard football. If Stoke, for example, want to stay up they need good players - but do the good players need Stoke, when Blackburn, Bolton, Wolves etc would probably gladly take them on so they can say 'pay me X or I go elsewhere' because elsewhere will pay it. If the clubs took a bit more of a collective stand you wouldn't get so many overstretching themsleves because they could force the market rate down - anything is only worth what someone wil pay for it.
This is a fair point and one I did think of, I guess the long contracts wouldn't be such an issue as long as clauses existed to force players to take a bit of a wage cut if the club is relegated. In return perhaps there could be a minimum fee release clause in each players contract so clubs can't block them from moving back nto the Premiership as long as they get a decent transfer fee.
Don't necessarily agree with this though - players currently have 90% of the power imo. They should certainly have powers, but maybe they hold too much right now.
Ticket income is nothing like as much as that, bearing in mind VAT and concessions.