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.
Agree with your post, although the latter will not happen.
To summarise, cancelling Chuks' contract will cost the club more money overall but will create space in the budget. If you're really focused on the glory of the wage budget then this is great news for you. If you're focused on overall expenditure then this is terrible news. I can't speak for whether the owners - who set the budget - will view spending more of their money overall if it creates lower numbers on their budget sheet as an absolute win but I'm sure all 600 of them are currently debating this as we speak. One thing I can guarantee is if we did cancel Chuks' contract he'd immediately completely heal up, sign for a rival team and score the goals that stop us getting promoted this season, possibly while pulling up his shirt to reveal the annual CAFC budget review on his vest. I don't think I'd begrudge him it either
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.
Agree with your post, although the latter will not happen.
i know but i'm currently living in the glass half full camp. Lots to be optimistic about and i sincerely hope the same applies to Chuks, as at this level when he is fit and injury free, he is devastating
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.
Agree with your post, although the latter will not happen.
i know but i'm currently living in the glass half full camp. Lots to be optimistic about and i sincerely hope the same applies to Chuks, as at this level when he is fit and injury free, he is devastating
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.
This just shows you cant follow, how has it now become 750k🤣
Also where did i say we would save 380k ?
Actually argue the points dont just make up ypur own.
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.
Ok so one more question where do you think the 500k to pay him would come from over the next 2 years ?
The only reason to keep him is they believe he can get back to being an asset which is a fair opinion to hold.
What's the maths and damage done to the wage and transfer budget if we bring two in and loan chucks out, say, one perm like Nombe for £700k and a loan, prem loan is wage free and half of Nombe's £5,322.37 a month wages off set by some mugs paying a bit of Aneke's £5K
Pay him up or possibly have him play? I would prefer the latter, money gone with no possible benefit or a chance to get on the pitch and do what he can do.
I never thought Stuwall could be beaten but talalsrightfoot has absolutely smashed him. He must be a WUM and reeled us all in.
No i just have A-level maths and understand how numbers and budgets work.
Bring your own tracing paper crayola and ill explain it to you
Mate I too have a levels in maths and economics, was a bank manager for 20 years and a financial adviser for 10 years. You are talking absolute rubbish and I've not seen one person that agrees with you.
Either you are right and everyone who has read this on CL is wrong, or you are wrong and everyone that has read this on CL is right.
If we spend £500K on Chucks and £250K on another player we have spent £250K more. You can't pay a player £500K and not pay it through the "books" that is breaking the EFL rules (amongst others). Are you proposing that our investors just start paying players willy nilly with no accountability and not through the "books" , it's too stupid for words and as you've been pushing this nonsense all day I can't fathom your motivation for doing so, unless it's a wind up?
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.
Agree with your post, although the latter will not happen.
i know but i'm currently living in the glass half full camp. Lots to be optimistic about and i sincerely hope the same applies to Chuks, as at this level when he is fit and injury free, he is devastating
Whoever authorised resigning him wants shooting.
I see where your coming from but at the same time, during his 6 months at Birmingham he didn't have 1 injury. No one has a crystal ball to predict what has happened would happen
I never thought Stuwall could be beaten but talalsrightfoot has absolutely smashed him. He must be a WUM and reeled us all in.
No i just have A-level maths and understand how numbers and budgets work.
Bring your own tracing paper crayola and ill explain it to you
Mate I too have a levels in maths and economics, was a bank manager for 20 years and a financial adviser for 10 years. You are talking absolute rubbish and I've not seen one person that agrees with you.
Either you are right and everyone who has read this on CL is wrong, or you are wrong and everyone that has read this on CL is right.
If we spend £500K on Chucks and £250K on another player we have spent £250K more. You can't pay a player £500K and not pay it through the "books" that is breaking the EFL rules (amongst others). Are you proposing that our investors just start paying players willy nilly with no accountability and not through the "books" , it's too stupid for words and as you've been pushing this nonsense all day I can't fathom your motivation for doing so, unless it's a wind up?
Again who has said sign someone for 250k ? Your just making stuff up now. I never said that.
Pay off the books ? Who on earth has said that. I said that we COULD pay him from finances or out of owners pockets which reduce the wage bill on a month by month basis. We then use the money saved from the wage budget to sign a cheaper player. The difference would be the money saved and we can repay the initial layout.
The only thing I can think is chucks costs us £500k in wages and £120k in rehab bills over next two years we unload and pay up the £500k and the £120k we would have spent on his rehab is in the till 🤷♂️
I never thought Stuwall could be beaten but talalsrightfoot has absolutely smashed him. He must be a WUM and reeled us all in.
No i just have A-level maths and understand how numbers and budgets work.
Bring your own tracing paper crayola and ill explain it to you
Mate I too have a levels in maths and economics, was a bank manager for 20 years and a financial adviser for 10 years. You are talking absolute rubbish and I've not seen one person that agrees with you.
Either you are right and everyone who has read this on CL is wrong, or you are wrong and everyone that has read this on CL is right.
If we spend £500K on Chucks and £250K on another player we have spent £250K more. You can't pay a player £500K and not pay it through the "books" that is breaking the EFL rules (amongst others). Are you proposing that our investors just start paying players willy nilly with no accountability and not through the "books" , it's too stupid for words and as you've been pushing this nonsense all day I can't fathom your motivation for doing so, unless it's a wind up?
Again who has said sign someone for 250k ? Your just making stuff up now. I never said that.
Pay off the books ? Who on earth has said that. I said that we COULD pay him from finances or out of owners pockets which reduce the wage bill on a month by month basis. We then use the money saved from the wage budget to sign a cheaper player. The difference would be the money saved and we can repay the initial layout.
Ita funny you have to go personal.
10k a month is 250k over 2 seasons, give or take. Sorry if you’re A Level Maths didn’t teach you that.
You must be a WUM, you can’t genuinely believe that paying circa 500k to save 10k a month is good business?
As for getting personal, didn’t you call me dense earlier?
I never thought Stuwall could be beaten but talalsrightfoot has absolutely smashed him. He must be a WUM and reeled us all in.
No i just have A-level maths and understand how numbers and budgets work.
Bring your own tracing paper crayola and ill explain it to you
Mate I too have a levels in maths and economics, was a bank manager for 20 years and a financial adviser for 10 years. You are talking absolute rubbish and I've not seen one person that agrees with you.
Either you are right and everyone who has read this on CL is wrong, or you are wrong and everyone that has read this on CL is right.
If we spend £500K on Chucks and £250K on another player we have spent £250K more. You can't pay a player £500K and not pay it through the "books" that is breaking the EFL rules (amongst others). Are you proposing that our investors just start paying players willy nilly with no accountability and not through the "books" , it's too stupid for words and as you've been pushing this nonsense all day I can't fathom your motivation for doing so, unless it's a wind up?
Again who has said sign someone for 250k ? Your just making stuff up now. I never said that.
Pay off the books ? Who on earth has said that. I said that we COULD pay him from finances or out of owners pockets which reduce the wage bill on a month by month basis. We then use the money saved from the wage budget to sign a cheaper player. The difference would be the money saved and we can repay the initial layout.
Ita funny you have to go personal.
You win you must be trolling there's no other explanation.
I never thought Stuwall could be beaten but talalsrightfoot has absolutely smashed him. He must be a WUM and reeled us all in.
No i just have A-level maths and understand how numbers and budgets work.
Bring your own tracing paper crayola and ill explain it to you
Mate I too have a levels in maths and economics, was a bank manager for 20 years and a financial adviser for 10 years. You are talking absolute rubbish and I've not seen one person that agrees with you.
Either you are right and everyone who has read this on CL is wrong, or you are wrong and everyone that has read this on CL is right.
If we spend £500K on Chucks and £250K on another player we have spent £250K more. You can't pay a player £500K and not pay it through the "books" that is breaking the EFL rules (amongst others). Are you proposing that our investors just start paying players willy nilly with no accountability and not through the "books" , it's too stupid for words and as you've been pushing this nonsense all day I can't fathom your motivation for doing so, unless it's a wind up?
Again who has said sign someone for 250k ? Your just making stuff up now. I never said that.
Pay off the books ? Who on earth has said that. I said that we COULD pay him from finances or out of owners pockets which reduce the wage bill on a month by month basis. We then use the money saved from the wage budget to sign a cheaper player. The difference would be the money saved and we can repay the initial layout.
Ita funny you have to go personal.
10k a month is 250k over 2 seasons, give or take. Sorry if you’re A Level Maths didn’t teach you that.
You must be a WUM, you can’t genuinely believe that paying circa 500k to save 10k a month is good business?
As for getting personal, didn’t you call me dense earlier?
Jesus its not to save 10k a month but 120k over the season plus the associated costs of an employee who cant do the job. Also a way to allow us to get a new player.
I never thought Stuwall could be beaten but talalsrightfoot has absolutely smashed him. He must be a WUM and reeled us all in.
No i just have A-level maths and understand how numbers and budgets work.
Bring your own tracing paper crayola and ill explain it to you
Mate I too have a levels in maths and economics, was a bank manager for 20 years and a financial adviser for 10 years. You are talking absolute rubbish and I've not seen one person that agrees with you.
Either you are right and everyone who has read this on CL is wrong, or you are wrong and everyone that has read this on CL is right.
If we spend £500K on Chucks and £250K on another player we have spent £250K more. You can't pay a player £500K and not pay it through the "books" that is breaking the EFL rules (amongst others). Are you proposing that our investors just start paying players willy nilly with no accountability and not through the "books" , it's too stupid for words and as you've been pushing this nonsense all day I can't fathom your motivation for doing so, unless it's a wind up?
Again who has said sign someone for 250k ? Your just making stuff up now. I never said that.
Pay off the books ? Who on earth has said that. I said that we COULD pay him from finances or out of owners pockets which reduce the wage bill on a month by month basis. We then use the money saved from the wage budget to sign a cheaper player. The difference would be the money saved and we can repay the initial layout.
Ita funny you have to go personal.
10k a month is 250k over 2 seasons, give or take. Sorry if you’re A Level Maths didn’t teach you that.
You must be a WUM, you can’t genuinely believe that paying circa 500k to save 10k a month is good business?
As for getting personal, didn’t you call me dense earlier?
Jesus its not to save 10k a month but 120k over the season plus the associated costs of an employee who cant do the job. Also a way to allow us to get a new player.
I never thought Stuwall could be beaten but talalsrightfoot has absolutely smashed him. He must be a WUM and reeled us all in.
No i just have A-level maths and understand how numbers and budgets work.
Bring your own tracing paper crayola and ill explain it to you
Mate I too have a levels in maths and economics, was a bank manager for 20 years and a financial adviser for 10 years. You are talking absolute rubbish and I've not seen one person that agrees with you.
Either you are right and everyone who has read this on CL is wrong, or you are wrong and everyone that has read this on CL is right.
If we spend £500K on Chucks and £250K on another player we have spent £250K more. You can't pay a player £500K and not pay it through the "books" that is breaking the EFL rules (amongst others). Are you proposing that our investors just start paying players willy nilly with no accountability and not through the "books" , it's too stupid for words and as you've been pushing this nonsense all day I can't fathom your motivation for doing so, unless it's a wind up?
Again who has said sign someone for 250k ? Your just making stuff up now. I never said that.
Pay off the books ? Who on earth has said that. I said that we COULD pay him from finances or out of owners pockets which reduce the wage bill on a month by month basis. We then use the money saved from the wage budget to sign a cheaper player. The difference would be the money saved and we can repay the initial layout.
Ita funny you have to go personal.
You win you must be trolling there's no other explanation.
Answer the questions or is it just easier to snarky ?
Comments
He must be a WUM and reeled us all in.
Also where did i say we would save 380k ?
Actually argue the points dont just make up ypur own.
The only reason to keep him is they believe he can get back to being an asset which is a fair opinion to hold.
Bring your own tracing paper crayola and ill explain it to you
Thread/discussion of the year potential this.
Get the calculators out boys, fucking solved it.
Actually dont because you cant, im tired of this aswell. You wont change your mind no matter how much logic is used.
Just one question though what do you ACTUALLY think im trying to argue here ?
You are talking absolute rubbish and I've not seen one person that agrees with you.
Either you are right and everyone who has read this on CL is wrong, or you are wrong and everyone that has read this on CL is right.
If we spend £500K on Chucks and £250K on another player we have spent £250K more.
You can't pay a player £500K and not pay it through the "books" that is breaking the EFL rules (amongst others).
Are you proposing that our investors just start paying players willy nilly with no accountability and not through the "books" , it's too stupid for words and as you've been pushing this nonsense all day I can't fathom your motivation for doing so, unless it's a wind up?
that's what would have happened in the playground in 1990!
Pay off the books ? Who on earth has said that. I said that we COULD pay him from finances or out of owners pockets which reduce the wage bill on a month by month basis. We then use the money saved from the wage budget to sign a cheaper player. The difference would be the money saved and we can repay the initial layout.
Ita funny you have to go personal.
we unload and pay up the £500k and the £120k we would have spent on his rehab is in the till 🤷♂️
As for getting personal, didn’t you call me dense earlier?
You crying about it ? Lol