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.
Its clearly over your head. Insane.
Its a saving on the wage bidget to subsidise the outlay.
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.
Many of these comments ignore the fact that all English professional football clubs insure their players. (And most football players also insure themselves.) So in the event that it was deemed that Chuks' career was over, neither the club nor he would lose out. At least in terms of his current contract.
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.
Its clearly over your head. Insane.
Its a saving on the wage bidget to subsidise the outlay.
yes I get that, it reduces the wage budget. But it doesn't save the club any money. So to put it bluntly, what's the fucking point?
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.
Reduces the wage budget yes, but the wage bill cap was scrapped so we don't have to worry about. It will still count towards club expenditure, not that we have to worry about any of that. All we need to worry about is how much the owners have to spend. Releasing Aneke doesn't ease that does it?
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.
Reduces the wage budget yes, but the wage bill cap was scrapped so we don't have to worry about. It will still count towards club expenditure, not that we have to worry about any of that. All we need to worry about is how much the owners have to spend. Releasing Aneke doesn't ease that does 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.
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.
Its clearly over your head. Insane.
Its a saving on the wage bidget to subsidise the outlay.
yes I get that, it reduces the wage budget. But it doesn't save the club any money. So to put it bluntly, what's the fucking point?
Many of these comments ignore the fact that all English professional football clubs insure their players. (And most football players also insure themselves.) So in the event that it was deemed that Chuks' career was over, neither the club nor he would lose out. At least in terms of his current contract.
Nobody is ignoring that but I doubt that would be useful if we pay his contract up, would only come into play if he is forced to retire.
This looks like one of those brain teasing conundrums, like how long would it take for a snail to escape from a barrell of lard if for every two inches it progressed up the side, it slides back one 🤔
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.
Its clearly over your head. Insane.
Its a saving on the wage bidget to subsidise the outlay.
yes I get that, it reduces the wage budget. But it doesn't save the club any money. So to put it bluntly, what's the fucking point?
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.
Reduces the wage budget yes, but the wage bill cap was scrapped so we don't have to worry about. It will still count towards club expenditure, not that we have to worry about any of that. All we need to worry about is how much the owners have to spend. Releasing Aneke doesn't ease that does it?
We still have a wage budget ?
You do know that ? Right ?
Yes? I get it, you are proposing to reduce the wage budget by releasing Chuks and replacing him with a cheaper option.
However, it's not saving the club any money. I presume you accept that? So how is it advantageous to the clubs financial position to do so? Please keep it in my mind I am incredibly dense so if you could make your answer as clear as possible that would be appreciated.
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).
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.
Reduces the wage budget yes, but the wage bill cap was scrapped so we don't have to worry about. It will still count towards club expenditure, not that we have to worry about any of that. All we need to worry about is how much the owners have to spend. Releasing Aneke doesn't ease that does it?
We still have a wage budget ?
You do know that ? Right ?
Do we have a separate paying up contracts early budget? Where is that money coming from? .
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.
Its clearly over your head. Insane.
Its a saving on the wage bidget to subsidise the outlay.
yes I get that, it reduces the wage budget. But it doesn't save the club any money. So to put it bluntly, what's the fucking point?
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).
It literally doesnt if you actually understand.
Also dont ignore the point regarding different budgets.
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).
It literally doesnt if you actually understand.
Also dont ignore the point regarding different budgets.
Who gives a toss about different budgets, the money still has to come from somewhere.
Your proposal would work if the salary cap was still in play because although it would cost the club money over the 2 years, it would reduce the wage bill and give us a little room. That cap has been abolished though.
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).
It literally doesnt if you actually understand.
Also dont ignore the point regarding different budgets.
OK - you got me.
I literally don't understand, well apart from there could be different budgets.
In my world, budgets are subsets of one pot. Irrespective of the budget line, the company still pays out of the one pot.
My understanding is that professional footballers, or their clubs, take out an insurance policy that covers both the players and the clubs in the event of long term illness or injury.
Chucks barely played last season.
Indeed he has hardly been fit throughout his entire Charlton career. His latest injury was sustained in February 2023 and he hasn’t been fit since the then.
If the club has taken out an insurance policy, then surely now is the time to consider implementing it.
Me wandering into this thread and realising it’s actually an advanced maths lesson:
It's not advanced at all. The club just need to spend 750k rather than 500k over the next 2 years and then we'll save about 380k. It's obvious really, if you don't get it you're dense.
My understanding is that professional footballers, or their clubs, take out an insurance policy that covers both the players and the clubs in the event of long term illness or injury.
Chucks barely played last season.
Indeed he has hardly been fit throughout his entire Charlton career. His latest injury was sustained in February 2023 and he hasn’t been fit since the then.
If the club has taken out an insurance policy, then surely now is the time to consider implementing it.
I very much doubt it covers 'wear and tear' issues.
I have an even better idea say we have 25 players on an average 2 seasons per contract at $4k per week lets call it £200k per year £200k x 25 x 2= £10m
we pay them all now and we've reduced our wage budget to zero .... think how may players we can now get in
We all know what an asset Chuks can be, personally put the shoe on the other foot. If you were in his position, what would you do? Honestly, i'd still be collecting my pay check. i think sometimes people forget yes he is made of polystyrene, but his still fucking human. The poor fella doesn't ask for the shit cards he gets dealt. I for one hope and pray he can somehow miraculously overcome all the crap he has had to deal with and can do what he does best, which is bully defenders and score goals.
Comments
Its a saving on the wage bidget to subsidise the outlay.
You do know that ? Right ?
However, it's not saving the club any money. I presume you accept that? So how is it advantageous to the clubs financial position to do so? Please keep it in my mind I am incredibly dense so if you could make your answer as clear as possible that would be appreciated.
.
Also dont ignore the point regarding different budgets.
Your proposal would work if the salary cap was still in play because although it would cost the club money over the 2 years, it would reduce the wage bill and give us a little room. That cap has been abolished though.
I literally don't understand, well apart from there could be different budgets.
In my world, budgets are subsets of one pot. Irrespective of the budget line, the company still pays out of the one pot.
Chucks barely played last season.
His latest injury was sustained in February 2023 and he hasn’t been fit since the then.
If the club has taken out an insurance policy, then surely now is the time to consider implementing it.
£200k x 25 x 2= £10m
we pay them all now and we've reduced our wage budget to zero ....
think how may players we can now get in
yours
Stuwall the accountant