Should just pay up his contract - can't see the injury problem ever being sorted. We can't rely on him.
Pay up his contract OR don't and still have the player available when fit and when he isn't we're still paying up his contract - just over a longer period.
Exactly, I have never understood why people think we should pay him off. Why would we pay him £500k to not play for us when we can pay him the same but over 2 years for him to occasionally play for us. It’s frustrating but clearly the best option is to keep trying to get him fit and use him when we can
I'm not suggesting that we should pay him off but there might be a "discounted" settlement agreed on the basis that he was free, if and when fit, to sign a contract for another club. The other thing to possibly bear in mind is the resource and time spent on one particular player trying to get him fit given that it dilutes the time spent on other players who might have a better chance of being fit.
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?
Should just pay up his contract - can't see the injury problem ever being sorted. We can't rely on him.
Pay up his contract OR don't and still have the player available when fit and when he isn't we're still paying up his contract - just over a longer period.
Exactly, I have never understood why people think we should pay him off. Why would we pay him £500k to not play for us when we can pay him the same but over 2 years for him to occasionally play for us. It’s frustrating but clearly the best option is to keep trying to get him fit and use him when we can
Doesn't seem a lot of point tying up resources on a player who is injury prone who we can't rely on. Are we actually going to get him fit and productive? I'm sure we can come to a deal with him...
Should just pay up his contract - can't see the injury problem ever being sorted. We can't rely on him.
Pay up his contract OR don't and still have the player available when fit and when he isn't we're still paying up his contract - just over a longer period.
Exactly, I have never understood why people think we should pay him off. Why would we pay him £500k to not play for us when we can pay him the same but over 2 years for him to occasionally play for us. It’s frustrating but clearly the best option is to keep trying to get him fit and use him when we can
Should just pay up his contract - can't see the injury problem ever being sorted. We can't rely on him.
Pay up his contract OR don't and still have the player available when fit and when he isn't we're still paying up his contract - just over a longer period.
Exactly, I have never understood why people think we should pay him off. Why would we pay him £500k to not play for us when we can pay him the same but over 2 years for him to occasionally play for us. It’s frustrating but clearly the best option is to keep trying to get him fit and use him when we can
Because there's still a squad cap?
The squad gets submitted to the EFL the day after each transfer window closes, there is no obligation to submit every registered player. If a player was injured and unlikely to play before the end of January you would not have to count them in your squad so it wouldn’t stop you making another signing. Whatever the club does it costs money because of the long contract they gave him, but he doesn’t need to take up one of the squad places
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.
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??
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.
This plan would cost us £120k rather than save us £380k. You would bring forward Chuk’s £500k (although that’s probably already accounted for over the next 24 months) and ontop of that pay someone else £120k that isn’t already accounted for. So total expenditure goes from £500k to £620k.
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 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.
This plan would cost us £120k rather than save us £380k. You would bring forward Chuk’s £500k (although that’s probably already accounted for over the next 24 months) and ontop of that pay someone else £120k that isn’t already accounted for. So total expenditure goes from £500k to £620k.
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.
Stop making points that suits your mathematical agenda!
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.
This plan would cost us £120k rather than save us £380k. You would bring forward Chuk’s £500k (although that’s probably already accounted for over the next 24 months) and ontop of that pay someone else £120k that isn’t already accounted for. So total expenditure goes from £500k to £620k.
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.
No you have misread or misunderstood its saves us 120k after one season and has 380k left to recoup.
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.
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??
You make the money back up by not signing another player on a 20k a month contract.
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.
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.
This plan would cost us £120k rather than save us £380k. You would bring forward Chuk’s £500k (although that’s probably already accounted for over the next 24 months) and ontop of that pay someone else £120k that isn’t already accounted for. So total expenditure goes from £500k to £620k.
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.
No you have misread or misunderstood its saves us 120k after one season and has 380k left to recoup.
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.
But where does the 500k payment come from? That still has to come out of part of the clubs budget SOMEWHERE???
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??
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 impact
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.
This plan would cost us £120k rather than save us £380k. You would bring forward Chuk’s £500k (although that’s probably already accounted for over the next 24 months) and ontop of that pay someone else £120k that isn’t already accounted for. So total expenditure goes from £500k to £620k.
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.
No you have misread or misunderstood its saves us 120k after one season and has 380k left to recoup.
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.
But where does the 500k payment come from? That still has to come out of part of the clubs budget SOMEWHERE???
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??
FROM THE CLUB AND/OR OWNERS.
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.
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.
This plan would cost us £120k rather than save us £380k. You would bring forward Chuk’s £500k (although that’s probably already accounted for over the next 24 months) and ontop of that pay someone else £120k that isn’t already accounted for. So total expenditure goes from £500k to £620k.
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.
No you have misread or misunderstood its saves us 120k after one season and has 380k left to recoup.
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.
Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?
It does if you actually read it
Would be useful if people actually used maths
How you saving money if you're paying Chuks contract up?
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.
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.
This plan would cost us £120k rather than save us £380k. You would bring forward Chuk’s £500k (although that’s probably already accounted for over the next 24 months) and ontop of that pay someone else £120k that isn’t already accounted for. So total expenditure goes from £500k to £620k.
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.
No you have misread or misunderstood its saves us 120k after one season and has 380k left to recoup.
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.
No you dont understand.
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.
Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?
It does if you actually read it
Would be useful if people actually used maths
How you saving money if you're paying Chuks contract up?
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.
I mean its up to the club if they feel they can get something from him great but it doesnt change the fact he is one of our highest earners you could pay him up by reducing wage budget and still sign another player. When the money ahs been saved you increase wage budget again.
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.
This plan would cost us £120k rather than save us £380k. You would bring forward Chuk’s £500k (although that’s probably already accounted for over the next 24 months) and ontop of that pay someone else £120k that isn’t already accounted for. So total expenditure goes from £500k to £620k.
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.
No you have misread or misunderstood its saves us 120k after one season and has 380k left to recoup.
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.
No you dont understand.
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.
Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?
It does if you actually read it
Would be useful if people actually used maths
How you saving money if you're paying Chuks contract up?
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.
I mean its up to the club if they feel they can get something from him great but it doesnt change the fact he is one of our highest earners you could pay him up by reducing wage budget and still sign another player. When the money ahs been saved you increase wage budget again.
Yeah but if the owners have enough money that they can afford to pay Aneke 500k and then sign someone else for (using your example) 10k per month, why not just keep Aneke and sign someone for 10k a month? It's not costing you anymore, you're not saving by tearing Aneke's contract and you still get to use him an option, even if this is 5th choice.
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.
This plan would cost us £120k rather than save us £380k. You would bring forward Chuk’s £500k (although that’s probably already accounted for over the next 24 months) and ontop of that pay someone else £120k that isn’t already accounted for. So total expenditure goes from £500k to £620k.
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.
No you have misread or misunderstood its saves us 120k after one season and has 380k left to recoup.
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.
No you dont understand.
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.
With respect, it's really you that doesn't understand, what you're proposing as a "saving" is utterly bizarre.
Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?
It does if you actually read it
Would be useful if people actually used maths
How you saving money if you're paying Chuks contract up?
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.
I mean its up to the club if they feel they can get something from him great but it doesnt change the fact he is one of our highest earners you could pay him up by reducing wage budget and still sign another player. When the money ahs been saved you increase wage budget again.
Yeah but if the owners have enough money that they can afford to pay Aneke 500k and then sign someone else for (using your example) 10k per month, why not just keep Aneke and sign someone for 10k a month? It's not costing you anymore, you're not saving by tearing Aneke's contract and you still get to use him an option, even if this is 5th choice.
Because football teams are run on budgets and we ahve to deal with FFP.
In an ideal world we are owned by a mega newcastle like fund but we arent.
Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?
It does if you actually read it
Would be useful if people actually used maths
How you saving money if you're paying Chuks contract up?
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.
I mean its up to the club if they feel they can get something from him great but it doesnt change the fact he is one of our highest earners you could pay him up by reducing wage budget and still sign another player. When the money ahs been saved you increase wage budget again.
Yeah but if the owners have enough money that they can afford to pay Aneke 500k and then sign someone else for (using your example) 10k per month, why not just keep Aneke and sign someone for 10k a month? It's not costing you anymore, you're not saving by tearing Aneke's contract and you still get to use him an option, even if this is 5th choice.
Because football teams are run on budgets and we ahve to deal with FFP.
In an ideal world we are owned by a mega newcastle like fund but we arent.
Yes but you're not saving any money by paying someone's contract up! You're just paying it all up front rather than over the next 2 years. I'm not sure how you're not getting that?
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.
Paying Chuks off and getting somebody else in on lower wages does not save any money though?
It does if you actually read it
Would be useful if people actually used maths
How you saving money if you're paying Chuks contract up?
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.
I mean its up to the club if they feel they can get something from him great but it doesnt change the fact he is one of our highest earners you could pay him up by reducing wage budget and still sign another player. When the money ahs been saved you increase wage budget again.
Yeah but if the owners have enough money that they can afford to pay Aneke 500k and then sign someone else for (using your example) 10k per month, why not just keep Aneke and sign someone for 10k a month? It's not costing you anymore, you're not saving by tearing Aneke's contract and you still get to use him an option, even if this is 5th choice.
Because football teams are run on budgets and we ahve to deal with FFP.
In an ideal world we are owned by a mega newcastle like fund but we arent.
Yes but you're not saving any money by paying someone's contract up! You're just paying it all up front rather than over the next 2 years. I'm not sure how you're not getting that?
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.
What utter nonsense. 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).
Comments
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?
Because there's still a squad cap?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Today - liabilities of £500k
Under your plan - liabilities of £500k + £120k = £620k.
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.
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).