I think they was hoping to have a few of them players off the books by now.. As the get closer to the deadline I think they will go.
I think we might have another player in next week, which won't have a big impact on FFP. (premier league loan)
Camara loan, we are paying full salary, I understand, and a small loan fee!
Players will leave the club but as with most clubs they will happen on the last day of the window when they all get desperate
Yes, but you would know in the lead up to a deadline, who is likely to go, so you can start process of getting players in. The worrying thing is, is little interest in the players we want out.
I think they was hoping to have a few of them players off the books by now.. As the get closer to the deadline I think they will go.
I think we might have another player in next week, which won't have a big impact on FFP. (premier league loan)
Camara loan, we are paying full salary, I understand, and a small loan fee!
Players will leave the club but as with most clubs they will happen on the last day of the window when they all get desperate
Yes, but you would know in the lead up to a deadline, who is likely to go, so you can start process of getting players in. The worrying thing is, is little interest in the players we want out.
Not at present but as I said clubs get desperate at the last knockings.
Jaiyesimi, Kirk etc can either sit here and take home their money or decide they want to play football elsewhere and will have to possibly suck up a wage cut as well.
If we are waiting for outgoings, how much we gonna raise from that, 2 bob?
Surely more about getting a couple of wages off the book than transfer fees?
Exactly what i meant, we won't get those wages covered, as for transfer fees, that's lala land...
I don't think we will, who is going to pay Kirk 7k a week.
This
If we can get 50% of his salary off our books we have done well.. Issue is, few players we have bought in this summer are on decent wages, which takes us close to FFP.. We do need to get a few off the books.
Sandgaard used the FFP excuse last summer but I’m not sure that’s a good enough excuse. Owners can still put money in that doesn’t count towards it, as long as it’s not put in as a loan against the club (see Ipswich’s spending). If we are serious about building a squad for top 6/promotion then FFP isn’t an excuse.
I’m more patient than others, happy with the quality of signings so far and don’t mind dropping a few points this month if it means we get some real quality later in the window as that will win us more points over the course of the season. If we don’t get that quality in though, and the excuse is FFP and we couldn’t offload DJ, Kirk etc then that’s not good enough and a really poor start for the new regime
I think they was hoping to have a few of them players off the books by now.. As the get closer to the deadline I think they will go.
I think we might have another player in next week, which won't have a big impact on FFP. (premier league loan)
Camara loan, we are paying full salary, I understand, and a small loan fee!
Players will leave the club but as with most clubs they will happen on the last day of the window when they all get desperate
Yes, but you would know in the lead up to a deadline, who is likely to go, so you can start process of getting players in. The worrying thing is, is little interest in the players we want out.
Not at present but as I said clubs get desperate at the last knockings.
Jaiyesimi, Kirk etc can either sit here and take home their money or decide they want to play football elsewhere and will have to possibly suck up a wage cut as well.
Charlton would have to make up the shortfall in the wages.. Clubs will only offer what they can afford or willing to pay. Things will warm up later part of this week, going into next week.
Same as Charlton with Cosgrove, we are only willing to offer what we feel is right, and won't pay over the top. Charlton only wanted to pay 50% of his wages, as he is on a decent salary, but they wanted a club to pay more.. He is another case of Kirk, offered a silly contract.
If we are waiting for outgoings, how much we gonna raise from that, 2 bob?
Surely more about getting a couple of wages off the book than transfer fees?
Exactly what i meant, we won't get those wages covered, as for transfer fees, that's lala land...
I don't think we will, who is going to pay Kirk 7k a week.
This
If we can get 50% of his salary off our books we have done well.. Issue is, few players we have bought in this summer are on decent wages, which takes us close to FFP.. We do need to get a few off the books.
Sandgaard used the FFP excuse last summer but I’m not sure that’s a good enough excuse. Owners can still put money in that doesn’t count towards it, as long as it’s not put in as a loan against the club (see Ipswich’s spending). If we are serious about building a squad for top 6/promotion then FFP isn’t an excuse.
I’m more patient than others, happy with the quality of signings so far and don’t mind dropping a few points this month if it means we get some real quality later in the window as that will win us more points over the course of the season. If we don’t get that quality in though, and the excuse is FFP and we couldn’t offload DJ, Kirk etc then that’s not good enough and a really poor start for the new regime
Not 100% up on FFP but I am not sure that is the case, I would need to read up on it.. Ipswich income is a lot higher than ours, the average 28,000 at home, where we was half of that, so on that basis, they are going to have double the budget..
I'm guessing the FFP is around the 60% turnover on wages rather than annual losses. Looking at our squad, it seems crazy our wage bill is that high. I know we've got players we don't want on decent salaries but it's not a massive squad and the likes of Asiimwe, Anderson and Ness can't be too much.
If we are waiting for outgoings, how much we gonna raise from that, 2 bob?
Surely more about getting a couple of wages off the book than transfer fees?
Exactly what i meant, we won't get those wages covered, as for transfer fees, that's lala land...
I don't think we will, who is going to pay Kirk 7k a week.
This
If we can get 50% of his salary off our books we have done well.. Issue is, few players we have bought in this summer are on decent wages, which takes us close to FFP.. We do need to get a few off the books.
Sandgaard used the FFP excuse last summer but I’m not sure that’s a good enough excuse. Owners can still put money in that doesn’t count towards it, as long as it’s not put in as a loan against the club (see Ipswich’s spending). If we are serious about building a squad for top 6/promotion then FFP isn’t an excuse.
I’m more patient than others, happy with the quality of signings so far and don’t mind dropping a few points this month if it means we get some real quality later in the window as that will win us more points over the course of the season. If we don’t get that quality in though, and the excuse is FFP and we couldn’t offload DJ, Kirk etc then that’s not good enough and a really poor start for the new regime
Not 100% up on FFP but I am not sure that is the case, I would need to read up on it.. Ipswich income is a lot higher than ours, the average 28,000 at home, where we was half of that, so on that basis, they are going to have double the budget..
It is the case but you’re right Ipswich have bigger attendances which supports a larger budget.
The question is whether the owners want to put money in without loaning it. RD and TS didn’t, and I imagine that’s the case for most clubs at this level.
Clubs in the League 1 and League 2 operate within a Spending Constraint framework termed Salary Cost Management Protocol (SMCP). SCMP limits spending on player wages to a percentage of club Turnover. In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - in League 2, the limit is 55%. There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees.
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Tbh I wasn’t really expecting to get promoted this season, if the new owners are here for the relative long term and we build a good squad in that period and they get us promoted I’ll be happy.
First window hasn’t even closed so hard to judge how good they will be as owners. Hopefully they are in this for the right reasons and make the right decisions, if that means it takes 2 seasons to get promoted then so be it.
Obviously hope it happens this season though!! COYR
In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees.
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Profit on player sales
Any profit made on player sales is included within Turnover on a cash basis when the instalments are received.
Player Wages and deductions
Under SCMP, 'Wages' relates to player wages only (director remuneration and general club staff wages are not included in the SCMP calculation). Player wages included in the SCMP calculation relate to all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Wage costs for players loaned out to other clubs are deducted for the period of the loan. Wage costs for Youth players on a professional contract are also excluded (i.e. players that have been in the club’s Youth Development scheme and have been given a pro contract); they must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation.
I think they was hoping to have a few of them players off the books by now.. As the get closer to the deadline I think they will go.
I think we might have another player in next week, which won't have a big impact on FFP. (premier league loan)
Camara loan, we are paying full salary, I understand, and a small loan fee!
Players will leave the club but as with most clubs they will happen on the last day of the window when they all get desperate
Yes, but you would know in the lead up to a deadline, who is likely to go, so you can start process of getting players in. The worrying thing is, is little interest in the players we want out.
Not difficult to understand why there isnt much interest in DJ. I don’t think his loan was very successful at Wimbledon and hasn’t been anywhere near a first team starter for years now. If we did manage to shift him on loan, got to reckon the percentage would be incredibly small which the other clubs would being paying.
If we are waiting for outgoings, how much we gonna raise from that, 2 bob?
Surely more about getting a couple of wages off the book than transfer fees?
Exactly what i meant, we won't get those wages covered, as for transfer fees, that's lala land...
I don't think we will, who is going to pay Kirk 7k a week.
This
If we can get 50% of his salary off our books we have done well.. Issue is, few players we have bought in this summer are on decent wages, which takes us close to FFP.. We do need to get a few off the books.
Sandgaard used the FFP excuse last summer but I’m not sure that’s a good enough excuse. Owners can still put money in that doesn’t count towards it, as long as it’s not put in as a loan against the club (see Ipswich’s spending). If we are serious about building a squad for top 6/promotion then FFP isn’t an excuse.
I’m more patient than others, happy with the quality of signings so far and don’t mind dropping a few points this month if it means we get some real quality later in the window as that will win us more points over the course of the season. If we don’t get that quality in though, and the excuse is FFP and we couldn’t offload DJ, Kirk etc then that’s not good enough and a really poor start for the new regime
Not 100% up on FFP but I am not sure that is the case, I would need to read up on it.. Ipswich income is a lot higher than ours, the average 28,000 at home, where we was half of that, so on that basis, they are going to have double the budget..
It is the case but you’re right Ipswich have bigger attendances which supports a larger budget.
The question is whether the owners want to put money in without loaning it. RD and TS didn’t, and I imagine that’s the case for most clubs at this level.
Clubs in the League 1 and League 2 operate within a Spending Constraint framework termed Salary Cost Management Protocol (SMCP). SCMP limits spending on player wages to a percentage of club Turnover. In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - in League 2, the limit is 55%. There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees.
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Take Wiki with a pinch of salt but they now have Trivante Stewart as a Charlton player. In further news, Tommy Sandgaard has offered to do a Reggae version of 'Addicks to Victory' .
Take Wiki with a pinch of salt but they now have Trivante Stewart as a Charlton player. In further news Tommy Sandgaard has offered to do a Reggae version of 'Addicks to Victory' .
They bringing back Caribbean cocktail night to the Valley then?
Take Wiki with a pinch of salt but they now have Trivante Stewart as a Charlton player. In further news Tommy Sandgaard has offered to do a Reggae version of 'Addicks to Victory' .
They bringing back Caribbean cocktail night to the Valley then?
If we are waiting for outgoings, how much we gonna raise from that, 2 bob?
Surely more about getting a couple of wages off the book than transfer fees?
Exactly what i meant, we won't get those wages covered, as for transfer fees, that's lala land...
I don't think we will, who is going to pay Kirk 7k a week.
This
If we can get 50% of his salary off our books we have done well.. Issue is, few players we have bought in this summer are on decent wages, which takes us close to FFP.. We do need to get a few off the books.
Sandgaard used the FFP excuse last summer but I’m not sure that’s a good enough excuse. Owners can still put money in that doesn’t count towards it, as long as it’s not put in as a loan against the club (see Ipswich’s spending). If we are serious about building a squad for top 6/promotion then FFP isn’t an excuse.
I’m more patient than others, happy with the quality of signings so far and don’t mind dropping a few points this month if it means we get some real quality later in the window as that will win us more points over the course of the season. If we don’t get that quality in though, and the excuse is FFP and we couldn’t offload DJ, Kirk etc then that’s not good enough and a really poor start for the new regime
Not 100% up on FFP but I am not sure that is the case, I would need to read up on it.. Ipswich income is a lot higher than ours, the average 28,000 at home, where we was half of that, so on that basis, they are going to have double the budget..
The owners can put mire money into the club so long as it is equity. That is they buy more shares or convert the current loan money into shares. This feels more and more like the start of last season. That did not go well.
Happy to be corrected but I’m pretty sure 23/24 investment is capped at 60% of 22/23 turnover. If I’m correct, donations from the new owners will facilitate more headroom in 24/25 season!
Club are hoping to have Leaburn back in training with the first team back end of next week. Probably looking at first or second game in September to be available for selection.
It would have been better if the new owners had only paid Sandgaard say £5m and put the other £5m into the club for transfer fees & wages. Instead they paid him c£10m for a loss making club that he himself only paid c£1.5m.....and now dont have any money to strengthen the team.
The only way they are going to get a return on their money is if we get promoted. This current squad is not good enough for top 6.
And these are guys that are supposedly millionaires who are canny with business decisions.
If we are waiting for outgoings, how much we gonna raise from that, 2 bob?
Surely more about getting a couple of wages off the book than transfer fees?
Exactly what i meant, we won't get those wages covered, as for transfer fees, that's lala land...
I don't think we will, who is going to pay Kirk 7k a week.
So are the ownership willing to take the hit?
They did their due diligence. They've been around since christmas. They knew the score when they took over. There was a high likelihood that they would struggle to get the unwanted off the books. Due diligence would have told them that.
To make a success of this, they are going to have to take a hit to get where they claim they want this club to be. If they aren't willing to do that, and are hoping to do this on the cheap they they will go down in the same category of our last few owners.
If we are waiting for outgoings, how much we gonna raise from that, 2 bob?
Surely more about getting a couple of wages off the book than transfer fees?
Exactly what i meant, we won't get those wages covered, as for transfer fees, that's lala land...
I don't think we will, who is going to pay Kirk 7k a week.
So are the ownership willing to take the hit?
They did their due diligence. They've been around since christmas. They knew the score when they took over. There was a high likelihood that they would struggle to get the unwanted off the books. Due diligence would have told them that.
To make a success of this, they are going to have to take a hit to get where they claim they want this club to be. If they aren't willing to do that, and are hoping to do this on the cheap they they will go down in the same category of our last few owners.
But that's exactly what they (Scott) did. MacGillivray, Lavelle, DJ and Kirk were all shipped out in Jan. The difference is that they managed all that towards the end of the window, it's probably going to be the same now but unfortunately that doesn't help us at all.
If we are waiting for outgoings, how much we gonna raise from that, 2 bob?
Surely more about getting a couple of wages off the book than transfer fees?
Exactly what i meant, we won't get those wages covered, as for transfer fees, that's lala land...
I don't think we will, who is going to pay Kirk 7k a week.
So are the ownership willing to take the hit?
They did their due diligence. They've been around since christmas. They knew the score when they took over. There was a high likelihood that they would struggle to get the unwanted off the books. Due diligence would have told them that.
To make a success of this, they are going to have to take a hit to get where they claim they want this club to be. If they aren't willing to do that, and are hoping to do this on the cheap they they will go down in the same category of our last few owners.
But that's exactly what they (Scott) did. MacGillivray, Lavelle, DJ and Kirk were all shipped out in Jan. The difference is that they managed all that towards the end of the window, it's probably going to be the same now but unfortunately that doesn't help us at all.
Sadly, Scott shipped out the deadwood, signed more rotten deadwood to replace them and subsequently, let most of the original deadwood drift back in again.
Lessons in life eh? Do not buy a pile of shit, realise it's a pile of shit, then expect anyone else to be as stupid as you to overpay for a pile of shit...
x that by at least two in our case.
Unfortunately they didn't, we'll be recovering from TS for a while yet. Whether that's players or contracts with suppliers.
If we are waiting for outgoings, how much we gonna raise from that, 2 bob?
Surely more about getting a couple of wages off the book than transfer fees?
Exactly what i meant, we won't get those wages covered, as for transfer fees, that's lala land...
I don't think we will, who is going to pay Kirk 7k a week.
So are the ownership willing to take the hit?
They did their due diligence. They've been around since christmas. They knew the score when they took over. There was a high likelihood that they would struggle to get the unwanted off the books. Due diligence would have told them that.
To make a success of this, they are going to have to take a hit to get where they claim they want this club to be. If they aren't willing to do that, and are hoping to do this on the cheap they they will go down in the same category of our last few owners.
But that's exactly what they (Scott) did. MacGillivray, Lavelle, DJ and Kirk were all shipped out in Jan. The difference is that they managed all that towards the end of the window, it's probably going to be the same now but unfortunately that doesn't help us at all.
Sadly, Scott shipped out the deadwood, signed more rotten deadwood to replace them and subsequently, let most of the original deadwood drift back in again.
Brilliant!
But all deals still had to be agreed by TS as he was the owner no matter what Scott and Gallen wanted
Comments
Jaiyesimi, Kirk etc can either sit here and take home their money or decide they want to play football elsewhere and will have to possibly suck up a wage cut as well.
I’m more patient than others, happy with the quality of signings so far and don’t mind dropping a few points this month if it means we get some real quality later in the window as that will win us more points over the course of the season. If we don’t get that quality in though, and the excuse is FFP and we couldn’t offload DJ, Kirk etc then that’s not good enough and a really poor start for the new regime
Same as Charlton with Cosgrove, we are only willing to offer what we feel is right, and won't pay over the top. Charlton only wanted to pay 50% of his wages, as he is on a decent salary, but they wanted a club to pay more.. He is another case of Kirk, offered a silly contract.
The question is whether the owners want to put money in without loaning it. RD and TS didn’t, and I imagine that’s the case for most clubs at this level.
Here are the key bits on SCMP (FFP in L1 and L2):
https://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Clubs in the League 1 and League 2 operate within a Spending Constraint framework termed Salary Cost Management Protocol (SMCP). SCMP limits spending on player wages to a percentage of club Turnover. In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - in League 2, the limit is 55%. There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees.
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Highlights
In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees.
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Profit on player sales
Any profit made on player sales is included within Turnover on a cash basis when the instalments are received.
Player Wages and deductions
Under SCMP, 'Wages' relates to player wages only (director remuneration and general club staff wages are not included in the SCMP calculation). Player wages included in the SCMP calculation relate to all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Wage costs for players loaned out to other clubs are deducted for the period of the loan. Wage costs for Youth players on a professional contract are also excluded (i.e. players that have been in the club’s Youth Development scheme and have been given a pro contract); they must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation.
to reckon the percentage would be incredibly small which the other clubs would being paying.
This feels more and more like the start of last season.
That did not go well.
If I’m correct, donations from the new owners will facilitate more headroom in 24/25 season!
there's hope for me yet (even at nearly 49)
The only way they are going to get a return on their money is if we get promoted. This current squad is not good enough for top 6.
And these are guys that are supposedly millionaires who are canny with business decisions.
They did their due diligence. They've been around since christmas. They knew the score when they took over. There was a high likelihood that they would struggle to get the unwanted off the books. Due diligence would have told them that.
To make a success of this, they are going to have to take a hit to get where they claim they want this club to be.
If they aren't willing to do that, and are hoping to do this on the cheap they they will go down in the same category of our last few owners.
Brilliant!