Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Chuks Aneke - speculation re 2023/24 season (p60)
Comments
-
NabySarr said:Dazzler21 said:hoof_it_up_to_benty said:Should just pay up his contract - can't see the injury problem ever being sorted. We can't rely on him.
I'm also not sure how, either way, the early settlement of a player's contract affects FFP i.e. is the total cost spread over the remaining years of a contract or does it have to be included solely in the year of settlement?3 -
NabySarr said:Dazzler21 said:hoof_it_up_to_benty said:Should just pay up his contract - can't see the injury problem ever being sorted. We can't rely on him.2
-
NabySarr said:Dazzler21 said:hoof_it_up_to_benty said:Should just pay up his contract - can't see the injury problem ever being sorted. We can't rely on him.
Because there's still a squad cap?
0 -
CL_Phantom said:NabySarr said:Dazzler21 said:hoof_it_up_to_benty said:Should just pay up his contract - can't see the injury problem ever being sorted. We can't rely on him.
Because there's still a squad cap?0 -
So here it is for the last time, also making clear i dont wish to take money out of chuks hand.Firstly we pay chuks the rest of his contract - so we lay out 500k agreed however we now dont have a player who CAN NOT play and reduces the associated costs of having an employee on the club which could be tens of thousands or even over 100k over a 18 month period but thats debateable what isnt is that keeping a player employed costs the clubs more than just their salary.This reduces our wage bill circa 20k a month (according to other posters). We use this to sign a replacement on 10k. Thats a 10k reduction on wage budget. Over a year thats a 120k saving, plus we get a player who can actually play.500k - 120k = 380k (lets ignore all the other savings of not having him employed and dealing with injury)After just one year you have recouped almost a quarter of the layout and replaced an asset who offers no benefit and replaced with a cheaper one who could.Chuks would still receive every penny he is entitled too so no way am i happy to take food out his mouth as one illogical poster commented.The key here is if the club are willing to shell out 500k in one go ? I understand why they wouldnt but its a risk how much football is he going to actually play and is he gonna cost more to keep employed.Now please if you do choose to reply at least have the ability to read all of it and not just pick the points to suit your own agenda.What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.1
-
Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?4
-
I don't get it. That 500k outlay still has to come out of the clubs budget in some way what difference does it make if it is over 12 months or all in one go in one month? How is there a 120k saving?? It makes literally no sense - that 500k still has to come out of the club accounts somewhere doesn't it??
2 -
talalsrightfoot said:So here it is for the last time, also making clear i dont wish to take money out of chuks hand.Firstly we pay chuks the rest of his contract - so we lay out 500k agreed however we now dont have a player who CAN NOT play and reduces the associated costs of having an employee on the club which could be tens of thousands or even over 100k over a 18 month period but thats debateable what isnt is that keeping a player employed costs the clubs more than just their salary.This reduces our wage bill circa 20k a month (according to other posters). We use this to sign a replacement on 10k. Thats a 10k reduction on wage budget. Over a year thats a 120k saving, plus we get a player who can actually play.500k - 120k = 380k (lets ignore all the other savings of not having him employed and dealing with injury)After just one year you have recouped almost a quarter of the layout and replaced an asset who offers no benefit and replaced with a cheaper one who could.Chuks would still receive every penny he is entitled too so no way am i happy to take food out his mouth as one illogical poster commented.The key here is if the club are willing to shell out 500k in one go ? I understand why they wouldnt but its a risk how much football is he going to actually play and is he gonna cost more to keep employed.Now please if you do choose to reply at least have the ability to read all of it and not just pick the points to suit your own agenda.What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.
Additionally, I’m not sure what sort of striker we could get for £2.5k per week, nobody particularly good I would imagine.
Realistically Chuks isn’t going to retire and we probably aren’t going to pay him off. We just need to manage him as well as possible and get some minutes whenever we can - we know he’s a good option in this league when fit.10 -
se9addick said:talalsrightfoot said:So here it is for the last time, also making clear i dont wish to take money out of chuks hand.Firstly we pay chuks the rest of his contract - so we lay out 500k agreed however we now dont have a player who CAN NOT play and reduces the associated costs of having an employee on the club which could be tens of thousands or even over 100k over a 18 month period but thats debateable what isnt is that keeping a player employed costs the clubs more than just their salary.This reduces our wage bill circa 20k a month (according to other posters). We use this to sign a replacement on 10k. Thats a 10k reduction on wage budget. Over a year thats a 120k saving, plus we get a player who can actually play.500k - 120k = 380k (lets ignore all the other savings of not having him employed and dealing with injury)After just one year you have recouped almost a quarter of the layout and replaced an asset who offers no benefit and replaced with a cheaper one who could.Chuks would still receive every penny he is entitled too so no way am i happy to take food out his mouth as one illogical poster commented.The key here is if the club are willing to shell out 500k in one go ? I understand why they wouldnt but its a risk how much football is he going to actually play and is he gonna cost more to keep employed.Now please if you do choose to reply at least have the ability to read all of it and not just pick the points to suit your own agenda.What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.
Additionally, I’m not sure what sort of striker we could get for £2.5k per week, nobody particularly good I would imagine.
Realistically Chuks isn’t going to retire and we probably aren’t going to pay him off. We just need to manage him as well as possible and get some minutes whenever we can - we know he’s a good option in this league when fit.0 -
arny23394 said:Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?2
- Sponsored links:
-
se9addick said:talalsrightfoot said:So here it is for the last time, also making clear i dont wish to take money out of chuks hand.Firstly we pay chuks the rest of his contract - so we lay out 500k agreed however we now dont have a player who CAN NOT play and reduces the associated costs of having an employee on the club which could be tens of thousands or even over 100k over a 18 month period but thats debateable what isnt is that keeping a player employed costs the clubs more than just their salary.This reduces our wage bill circa 20k a month (according to other posters). We use this to sign a replacement on 10k. Thats a 10k reduction on wage budget. Over a year thats a 120k saving, plus we get a player who can actually play.500k - 120k = 380k (lets ignore all the other savings of not having him employed and dealing with injury)After just one year you have recouped almost a quarter of the layout and replaced an asset who offers no benefit and replaced with a cheaper one who could.Chuks would still receive every penny he is entitled too so no way am i happy to take food out his mouth as one illogical poster commented.The key here is if the club are willing to shell out 500k in one go ? I understand why they wouldnt but its a risk how much football is he going to actually play and is he gonna cost more to keep employed.Now please if you do choose to reply at least have the ability to read all of it and not just pick the points to suit your own agenda.What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.
Additionally, I’m not sure what sort of striker we could get for £2.5k per week, nobody particularly good I would imagine.
Realistically Chuks isn’t going to retire and we probably aren’t going to pay him off. We just need to manage him as well as possible and get some minutes whenever we can - we know he’s a good option in this league when fit.
So your by paying chuks his contract in full your saving 20k a month roughly on wage bill. If half of that (10k) is spent on a new signing your still saving 10k a month on wage bill each month, month or month that equals 120k savings plus all the costs of keeping chuks employed.
If chuks payment was 500k and your take away the 120k saved on budget youve recouped 120k and got 380k left to recoup.3 -
talalsrightfoot said:arny23394 said:Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?1
-
Manic_mania said:I don't get it. That 500k outlay still has to come out of the clubs budget in some way what difference does it make if it is over 12 months or all in one go in one month? How is there a 120k saving?? It makes literally no sense - that 500k still has to come out of the club accounts somewhere doesn't it??
The outlay represents 20k a month of the wage budget and you sign a replacement for 10k a month, over a year you have reduced the wage budget by 120k. The saving is on the wage budget and allows us to sign a new player.
You are correct it makes no differnce if we carry on paying chuks or not in terms of his contract (ignoring additional fees for employment) but if we kept on paying him his 20k salary and signed another player for 10 we have increased our monthly budget by 10k. If we pay upfront and release chuks we save the month wage budget 20k and can sign someone for 10k which leaves us 10k under budget which can be saved over a year to be put back in to the bank.1 -
talalsrightfoot said:se9addick said:talalsrightfoot said:So here it is for the last time, also making clear i dont wish to take money out of chuks hand.Firstly we pay chuks the rest of his contract - so we lay out 500k agreed however we now dont have a player who CAN NOT play and reduces the associated costs of having an employee on the club which could be tens of thousands or even over 100k over a 18 month period but thats debateable what isnt is that keeping a player employed costs the clubs more than just their salary.This reduces our wage bill circa 20k a month (according to other posters). We use this to sign a replacement on 10k. Thats a 10k reduction on wage budget. Over a year thats a 120k saving, plus we get a player who can actually play.500k - 120k = 380k (lets ignore all the other savings of not having him employed and dealing with injury)After just one year you have recouped almost a quarter of the layout and replaced an asset who offers no benefit and replaced with a cheaper one who could.Chuks would still receive every penny he is entitled too so no way am i happy to take food out his mouth as one illogical poster commented.The key here is if the club are willing to shell out 500k in one go ? I understand why they wouldnt but its a risk how much football is he going to actually play and is he gonna cost more to keep employed.Now please if you do choose to reply at least have the ability to read all of it and not just pick the points to suit your own agenda.What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.
Additionally, I’m not sure what sort of striker we could get for £2.5k per week, nobody particularly good I would imagine.
Realistically Chuks isn’t going to retire and we probably aren’t going to pay him off. We just need to manage him as well as possible and get some minutes whenever we can - we know he’s a good option in this league when fit.
So your by paying chuks his contract in full your saving 20k a month roughly on wage bill. If half of that (10k) is spent on a new signing your still saving 10k a month on wage bill each month, month or month that equals 120k savings plus all the costs of keeping chuks employed.
If chuks payment was 500k and your take away the 120k saved on budget youve recouped 120k and got 380k left to recoup.
If we had an annual wage budget of 5 million, and you use 500k of that to pay off chuks, that leaves you with 4.5 million left in the budget. Where are you getting 120k saving from there??1 -
Seriously, the man should retire. We’d get an insurance pay-out and he can take his pension0
-
This best solution is that Chuks can play his part on the pitch this season and I sincerely hope he does for his sake first and foremost and we all know he has the ability to make a real impact1
-
Manic_mania said:talalsrightfoot said:se9addick said:talalsrightfoot said:So here it is for the last time, also making clear i dont wish to take money out of chuks hand.Firstly we pay chuks the rest of his contract - so we lay out 500k agreed however we now dont have a player who CAN NOT play and reduces the associated costs of having an employee on the club which could be tens of thousands or even over 100k over a 18 month period but thats debateable what isnt is that keeping a player employed costs the clubs more than just their salary.This reduces our wage bill circa 20k a month (according to other posters). We use this to sign a replacement on 10k. Thats a 10k reduction on wage budget. Over a year thats a 120k saving, plus we get a player who can actually play.500k - 120k = 380k (lets ignore all the other savings of not having him employed and dealing with injury)After just one year you have recouped almost a quarter of the layout and replaced an asset who offers no benefit and replaced with a cheaper one who could.Chuks would still receive every penny he is entitled too so no way am i happy to take food out his mouth as one illogical poster commented.The key here is if the club are willing to shell out 500k in one go ? I understand why they wouldnt but its a risk how much football is he going to actually play and is he gonna cost more to keep employed.Now please if you do choose to reply at least have the ability to read all of it and not just pick the points to suit your own agenda.What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.
Additionally, I’m not sure what sort of striker we could get for £2.5k per week, nobody particularly good I would imagine.
Realistically Chuks isn’t going to retire and we probably aren’t going to pay him off. We just need to manage him as well as possible and get some minutes whenever we can - we know he’s a good option in this league when fit.
So your by paying chuks his contract in full your saving 20k a month roughly on wage bill. If half of that (10k) is spent on a new signing your still saving 10k a month on wage bill each month, month or month that equals 120k savings plus all the costs of keeping chuks employed.
If chuks payment was 500k and your take away the 120k saved on budget youve recouped 120k and got 380k left to recoup.
If we had an annual wage budget of 5 million, and you use 500k of that to pay off chuks, that leaves you with 4.5 million left in the budget. Where are you getting 120k saving from there??
What budget are you talking about there isnt just one big budget ? You have bank balance, transfer budget, wage budget etc. Read above it explains its a saving from wage budget.0 -
talalsrightfoot said:se9addick said:talalsrightfoot said:So here it is for the last time, also making clear i dont wish to take money out of chuks hand.Firstly we pay chuks the rest of his contract - so we lay out 500k agreed however we now dont have a player who CAN NOT play and reduces the associated costs of having an employee on the club which could be tens of thousands or even over 100k over a 18 month period but thats debateable what isnt is that keeping a player employed costs the clubs more than just their salary.This reduces our wage bill circa 20k a month (according to other posters). We use this to sign a replacement on 10k. Thats a 10k reduction on wage budget. Over a year thats a 120k saving, plus we get a player who can actually play.500k - 120k = 380k (lets ignore all the other savings of not having him employed and dealing with injury)After just one year you have recouped almost a quarter of the layout and replaced an asset who offers no benefit and replaced with a cheaper one who could.Chuks would still receive every penny he is entitled too so no way am i happy to take food out his mouth as one illogical poster commented.The key here is if the club are willing to shell out 500k in one go ? I understand why they wouldnt but its a risk how much football is he going to actually play and is he gonna cost more to keep employed.Now please if you do choose to reply at least have the ability to read all of it and not just pick the points to suit your own agenda.What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.
Additionally, I’m not sure what sort of striker we could get for £2.5k per week, nobody particularly good I would imagine.
Realistically Chuks isn’t going to retire and we probably aren’t going to pay him off. We just need to manage him as well as possible and get some minutes whenever we can - we know he’s a good option in this league when fit.
So your by paying chuks his contract in full your saving 20k a month roughly on wage bill. If half of that (10k) is spent on a new signing your still saving 10k a month on wage bill each month, month or month that equals 120k savings plus all the costs of keeping chuks employed.
If chuks payment was 500k and your take away the 120k saved on budget youve recouped 120k and got 380k left to recoup.Today the club has a liability of £500k, which is (apparently) the remainder of Chuks contract.
You are suggesting the club pays Chuks this £500k to terminate his contract. In addition you suggest that the club should pay £120k for a replacement.To summarise:
Today - liabilities of £500k
Under your plan - liabilities of £500k + £120k = £620k.1 -
talalsrightfoot said:talalsrightfoot said:arny23394 said:Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?
I get the frustration with Aneke, obviously it's annoying paying someone who you know is barely going to be available, and when he is it's with a short cameo. Naturally the best thing for the club is for him to retire or go somewhere else so his wage can be used on a 4th striker who even if he isn't great, gives us another, more reliable option.
But if you're going to pay him what you would pay him over the next 2 years anyway, it makes more sense to keep him and just use him occasionally as it costs nothing more but gives you the extra option.2 -
se9addick said:talalsrightfoot said:se9addick said:talalsrightfoot said:So here it is for the last time, also making clear i dont wish to take money out of chuks hand.Firstly we pay chuks the rest of his contract - so we lay out 500k agreed however we now dont have a player who CAN NOT play and reduces the associated costs of having an employee on the club which could be tens of thousands or even over 100k over a 18 month period but thats debateable what isnt is that keeping a player employed costs the clubs more than just their salary.This reduces our wage bill circa 20k a month (according to other posters). We use this to sign a replacement on 10k. Thats a 10k reduction on wage budget. Over a year thats a 120k saving, plus we get a player who can actually play.500k - 120k = 380k (lets ignore all the other savings of not having him employed and dealing with injury)After just one year you have recouped almost a quarter of the layout and replaced an asset who offers no benefit and replaced with a cheaper one who could.Chuks would still receive every penny he is entitled too so no way am i happy to take food out his mouth as one illogical poster commented.The key here is if the club are willing to shell out 500k in one go ? I understand why they wouldnt but its a risk how much football is he going to actually play and is he gonna cost more to keep employed.Now please if you do choose to reply at least have the ability to read all of it and not just pick the points to suit your own agenda.What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.
Additionally, I’m not sure what sort of striker we could get for £2.5k per week, nobody particularly good I would imagine.
Realistically Chuks isn’t going to retire and we probably aren’t going to pay him off. We just need to manage him as well as possible and get some minutes whenever we can - we know he’s a good option in this league when fit.
So your by paying chuks his contract in full your saving 20k a month roughly on wage bill. If half of that (10k) is spent on a new signing your still saving 10k a month on wage bill each month, month or month that equals 120k savings plus all the costs of keeping chuks employed.
If chuks payment was 500k and your take away the 120k saved on budget youve recouped 120k and got 380k left to recoup.Today the club has a liability of £500k, which is (apparently) the remainder of Chuks contract.
You are suggesting the club pays Chuks this £500k to terminate his contract. In addition you suggest that the club should pay £120k for a replacement.To summarise:
Today - liabilities of £500k
Under your plan - liabilities of £500k + £120k = £620k.
Ok so we have a monthly wage budget ok ?
Lets say its 150k a month. The club could choose to pay 500k from its accounts and then reduce the wage budget by 20k (chuks wages) until the 500k they spent is covered.
Or they could reduce it by 10k and pay a new player 10k a month hwnce the new wage budget without chuks and adding a new palyer would be - 140k over a year the saving would be 120k. Which is nearly a quarter of the 500k the club spent.
Your conflating the payment and wage budget.0 - Sponsored links:
-
cafcfan1990 said:talalsrightfoot said:talalsrightfoot said:arny23394 said:Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?
I get the frustration with Aneke, obviously it's annoying paying someone who you know is barely going to be available, and when he is it's with a short cameo. Naturally the best thing for the club is for him to retire or go somewhere else so his wage can be used on a 4th striker who even if he isn't great, gives us another, more reliable option.
But if you're going to pay him what you would pay him over the next 2 years anyway, it makes more sense to keep him and just use him occasionally as it costs nothing more but gives you the extra option.0 -
se9addick said:talalsrightfoot said:se9addick said:talalsrightfoot said:So here it is for the last time, also making clear i dont wish to take money out of chuks hand.Firstly we pay chuks the rest of his contract - so we lay out 500k agreed however we now dont have a player who CAN NOT play and reduces the associated costs of having an employee on the club which could be tens of thousands or even over 100k over a 18 month period but thats debateable what isnt is that keeping a player employed costs the clubs more than just their salary.This reduces our wage bill circa 20k a month (according to other posters). We use this to sign a replacement on 10k. Thats a 10k reduction on wage budget. Over a year thats a 120k saving, plus we get a player who can actually play.500k - 120k = 380k (lets ignore all the other savings of not having him employed and dealing with injury)After just one year you have recouped almost a quarter of the layout and replaced an asset who offers no benefit and replaced with a cheaper one who could.Chuks would still receive every penny he is entitled too so no way am i happy to take food out his mouth as one illogical poster commented.The key here is if the club are willing to shell out 500k in one go ? I understand why they wouldnt but its a risk how much football is he going to actually play and is he gonna cost more to keep employed.Now please if you do choose to reply at least have the ability to read all of it and not just pick the points to suit your own agenda.What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.
Additionally, I’m not sure what sort of striker we could get for £2.5k per week, nobody particularly good I would imagine.
Realistically Chuks isn’t going to retire and we probably aren’t going to pay him off. We just need to manage him as well as possible and get some minutes whenever we can - we know he’s a good option in this league when fit.
So your by paying chuks his contract in full your saving 20k a month roughly on wage bill. If half of that (10k) is spent on a new signing your still saving 10k a month on wage bill each month, month or month that equals 120k savings plus all the costs of keeping chuks employed.
If chuks payment was 500k and your take away the 120k saved on budget youve recouped 120k and got 380k left to recoup.Today the club has a liability of £500k, which is (apparently) the remainder of Chuks contract.
You are suggesting the club pays Chuks this £500k to terminate his contract. In addition you suggest that the club should pay £120k for a replacement.To summarise:
Today - liabilities of £500k
Under your plan - liabilities of £500k + £120k = £620k.Ok so we have a monthly wage budget ok ?Lets say its 150k a month. The club could choose to pay 500k from its accounts and then reduce the wage budget by 20k (chuks wages) until the 500k they spent is covered.Or they could reduce it by 10k and pay a new player 10k a month hwnce the new wage budget without chuks and adding a new palyer would be - 140k over a year the saving would be 120k. Which is nearly a quarter of the 500k the club spent.0 -
talalsrightfoot said:cafcfan1990 said:talalsrightfoot said:talalsrightfoot said:arny23394 said:Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?
I get the frustration with Aneke, obviously it's annoying paying someone who you know is barely going to be available, and when he is it's with a short cameo. Naturally the best thing for the club is for him to retire or go somewhere else so his wage can be used on a 4th striker who even if he isn't great, gives us another, more reliable option.
But if you're going to pay him what you would pay him over the next 2 years anyway, it makes more sense to keep him and just use him occasionally as it costs nothing more but gives you the extra option.2 -
talalsrightfoot said:se9addick said:talalsrightfoot said:se9addick said:talalsrightfoot said:So here it is for the last time, also making clear i dont wish to take money out of chuks hand.Firstly we pay chuks the rest of his contract - so we lay out 500k agreed however we now dont have a player who CAN NOT play and reduces the associated costs of having an employee on the club which could be tens of thousands or even over 100k over a 18 month period but thats debateable what isnt is that keeping a player employed costs the clubs more than just their salary.This reduces our wage bill circa 20k a month (according to other posters). We use this to sign a replacement on 10k. Thats a 10k reduction on wage budget. Over a year thats a 120k saving, plus we get a player who can actually play.500k - 120k = 380k (lets ignore all the other savings of not having him employed and dealing with injury)After just one year you have recouped almost a quarter of the layout and replaced an asset who offers no benefit and replaced with a cheaper one who could.Chuks would still receive every penny he is entitled too so no way am i happy to take food out his mouth as one illogical poster commented.The key here is if the club are willing to shell out 500k in one go ? I understand why they wouldnt but its a risk how much football is he going to actually play and is he gonna cost more to keep employed.Now please if you do choose to reply at least have the ability to read all of it and not just pick the points to suit your own agenda.What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.
Additionally, I’m not sure what sort of striker we could get for £2.5k per week, nobody particularly good I would imagine.
Realistically Chuks isn’t going to retire and we probably aren’t going to pay him off. We just need to manage him as well as possible and get some minutes whenever we can - we know he’s a good option in this league when fit.
So your by paying chuks his contract in full your saving 20k a month roughly on wage bill. If half of that (10k) is spent on a new signing your still saving 10k a month on wage bill each month, month or month that equals 120k savings plus all the costs of keeping chuks employed.
If chuks payment was 500k and your take away the 120k saved on budget youve recouped 120k and got 380k left to recoup.Today the club has a liability of £500k, which is (apparently) the remainder of Chuks contract.
You are suggesting the club pays Chuks this £500k to terminate his contract. In addition you suggest that the club should pay £120k for a replacement.To summarise:
Today - liabilities of £500k
Under your plan - liabilities of £500k + £120k = £620k.Ok so we have a monthly wage budget ok ?Lets say its 150k a month. The club could choose to pay 500k from its accounts and then reduce the wage budget by 20k (chuks wages) until the 500k they spent is covered.Or they could reduce it by 10k and pay a new player 10k a month hwnce the new wage budget without chuks and adding a new palyer would be - 140k over a year the saving would be 120k. Which is nearly a quarter of the 500k the club spent.8 -
cafcfan1990 said:talalsrightfoot said:cafcfan1990 said:talalsrightfoot said:talalsrightfoot said:arny23394 said:Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?
I get the frustration with Aneke, obviously it's annoying paying someone who you know is barely going to be available, and when he is it's with a short cameo. Naturally the best thing for the club is for him to retire or go somewhere else so his wage can be used on a 4th striker who even if he isn't great, gives us another, more reliable option.
But if you're going to pay him what you would pay him over the next 2 years anyway, it makes more sense to keep him and just use him occasionally as it costs nothing more but gives you the extra option.
In an ideal world we are owned by a mega newcastle like fund but we arent.0 -
talalsrightfoot said:cafcfan1990 said:talalsrightfoot said:cafcfan1990 said:talalsrightfoot said:talalsrightfoot said:arny23394 said:Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?
I get the frustration with Aneke, obviously it's annoying paying someone who you know is barely going to be available, and when he is it's with a short cameo. Naturally the best thing for the club is for him to retire or go somewhere else so his wage can be used on a 4th striker who even if he isn't great, gives us another, more reliable option.
But if you're going to pay him what you would pay him over the next 2 years anyway, it makes more sense to keep him and just use him occasionally as it costs nothing more but gives you the extra option.
In an ideal world we are owned by a mega newcastle like fund but we arent.2 -
Hold my beer, now you gave me a pound….0
-
The outlay has to be depreciated over time, so in effect reduces your wage budget. That analysis above is correct. The only way to maintain the budget is to pay Chuks to do another job, ie forwards coaching on his pay and free up the playing squad budget, but a) I do not believe coaches are on anywhere near that and b) the first time Chuks goes to demonstrate the shot type he means, he would likely do his hammy and have to sit the coaching out… Last point in total jest, of course want him back and fit asap.0
-
cafcfan1990 said:talalsrightfoot said:cafcfan1990 said:talalsrightfoot said:cafcfan1990 said:talalsrightfoot said:talalsrightfoot said:arny23394 said:Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?
I get the frustration with Aneke, obviously it's annoying paying someone who you know is barely going to be available, and when he is it's with a short cameo. Naturally the best thing for the club is for him to retire or go somewhere else so his wage can be used on a 4th striker who even if he isn't great, gives us another, more reliable option.
But if you're going to pay him what you would pay him over the next 2 years anyway, it makes more sense to keep him and just use him occasionally as it costs nothing more but gives you the extra option.
In an ideal world we are owned by a mega newcastle like fund but we arent.
Christ alive.0 -
talalsrightfoot said:So here it is for the last time, also making clear i dont wish to take money out of chuks hand.Firstly we pay chuks the rest of his contract - so we lay out 500k agreed however we now dont have a player who CAN NOT play and reduces the associated costs of having an employee on the club which could be tens of thousands or even over 100k over a 18 month period but thats debateable what isnt is that keeping a player employed costs the clubs more than just their salary.This reduces our wage bill circa 20k a month (according to other posters). We use this to sign a replacement on 10k. Thats a 10k reduction on wage budget. Over a year thats a 120k saving, plus we get a player who can actually play.500k - 120k = 380k (lets ignore all the other savings of not having him employed and dealing with injury)After just one year you have recouped almost a quarter of the layout and replaced an asset who offers no benefit and replaced with a cheaper one who could.Chuks would still receive every penny he is entitled too so no way am i happy to take food out his mouth as one illogical poster commented.The key here is if the club are willing to shell out 500k in one go ? I understand why they wouldnt but its a risk how much football is he going to actually play and is he gonna cost more to keep employed.Now please if you do choose to reply at least have the ability to read all of it and not just pick the points to suit your own agenda.What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.
IF Chucks is on £5K pw and has roughly 2 years left, roughly he will receive £5K x 100 weeks = £500K.
We can agree on that rough assumption.
It doesn't matter whether we pay him £500K now or spread over 2 years, we will still pay him £500K.
If we then sign a player now and pay him £2500 pw over let's say 100 weeks, the additional cost is £250K
Your proposal costs us an extra £250K (less any medical costs spent on Chucks).2
This discussion has been closed.