Cawley doesn’t believe Watson and Gunter were on big wages. I remember some on here claiming Watson was. If Cawley is right then releasing them wouldn’t have freed up quite as much as we might think. Same with Washington who also signed while the cap was in place.
It must be really hard getting two extra years on a paltry sum of 2k a week. I just don't know how they got by to be honest. All that for 5 1/2 days exercise and possibly a game on Saturday. Poor bastards. I thought slavery was abolished.
Get real ! 2K a week which was the cap then is big money to people who work for a living or depend on handouts.
But we’re not comparing it to working class people are we, we’re comparing it to footballers and other members of our squad.
If they were only on 2k a week then they weren’t high earners within the squad.
And !!!! The point is they are not fucking papers but for all the success we had which is fuck all they did alright and we endured crap.
We all know they are not papers and you sir are an imbecile, that is like an annoying wasp that you just can't get rid off.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Who wants a cameo player? Put it this way I bet BG would rather have his wages and the £300k to invest than be stuck with someone who unfortunately just cannot be relied on at anytime
You always have a striker on the bench. You bring them on 90% of the time.....
At 1-1 or 1-0 either way would you rather bring on Chuks, Washington or Davison? If your doing that 35 times a season what's the problem?
You do indeed. The thing is that striker you bring on 90% of the time also usually ends up filling in for 90 minutes when others are suspended, injured, or it’s a busy schedule and they need a rest.
Aneke cant do any of them. Aneke can’t even get through a pre season where there’s less intensity and his minutes were more managed than any other player.
That's the missing player though isn't it, Chuks or no Chuks?
If you had, Stockley, Stockton and Aneke, you would still bring Chuks off the bench more often than not. It's not, or shouldn't be, an and/or argument.
Which team in league one has the budget to have Stockley, Stockton and Aneke?
Why is Stockton potentially going to come here to potentially sit on the bench when he could play week in week out, or at least be used as a sub somewhere else.
That's not what I mean, in no world should you go into a season with 2 senior strikers wether one of them is Chuks (with his associated risks) or not.
The lad has got some composure, bag of tricks twisting and turning, quick feet, acceleration and change of pace. It's in tight spaces that he does the damage - faced with packed defences; he's a tin-opener.
The lad has got some composure, bag of tricks twisting and turning, quick feet, acceleration and change of pace. It's in tight spaces that he does the damage - faced with packed defences; he's a tin-opener.
Better than Leko?
From all the clips I’ve seen he has less explosive pace, but is more refined in his dribbling and looks like he can make some decent forwards passes as well.
His weakness (as with many that age) seems to be his decision making and tendency to hold onto the ball. But can’t say he does not look like an exciting prospect.
Cawley doesn’t believe Watson and Gunter were on big wages. I remember some on here claiming Watson was. If Cawley is right then releasing them wouldn’t have freed up quite as much as we might think. Same with Washington who also signed while the cap was in place.
It must be really hard getting two extra years on a paltry sum of 2k a week. I just don't know how they got by to be honest. All that for 5 1/2 days exercise and possibly a game on Saturday. Poor bastards. I thought slavery was abolished.
Get real ! 2K a week which was the cap then is big money to people who work for a living or depend on handouts.
But we’re not comparing it to working class people are we, we’re comparing it to footballers and other members of our squad.
If they were only on 2k a week then they weren’t high earners within the squad.
And !!!! The point is they are not fucking papers but for all the success we had which is fuck all they did alright and we endured crap.
People always assumed they were on big money. They were not. Same as a few others too. we are run better Than that now.
did you know Wigan have paid players and staff late on more than one occasion in the last few months? Is it just an oversight in their offices or have they overspent AGAIN?????
im much happier that we are being run more sustainably. Still too many clubs overspending and jeopardising their futures for short term gains
100% this. You look at Derby and after all the hell they have just gone through, they are bringing in players over thirty who must be on enormous salaries for this league.
As much as the owner isn't everyone's cup of tea, I think the owner/chairman of Peterboro is going about things the right way for the size of their club. I do think they missed a trick last year and could really have stayed up with a better keeper and one extra defender. But they are in a strong position to go straight back up again because they are run in a sustainable way.
How what Ipswich are doing is within their financial rules, I have no idea. They seem to be spending a fortune.
Ipswich have spent 900k on left back Leif Davis from Leeds.
Think it was said elsewhere on this thread earlier but i just dont understand how these clubs, in the same league as us and of a similar size can seemingly just go out and spend the way they do? Are they not subject to the same spending caps as us then? Find it all very strange.
I thought the rules were based on club income, whether that be through receipts or loans. If that is the case, we had the 4th largest attendance average last season, Sunderland promoted, thereafter Wednesday and Ipswich. In Weds case and an average £15 per ticket, I think their income would be c£1.75m greater than ours, delivering about a £1m more in squad fund allowance should they choose to spend that much.
May have interpreted the basic rules incorrectly but in general the much larger average attendances for Weds and Ipswich contributes to their competitiveness. Add to that the three that have come down (particularly based on new Derby investors) and suspect we will have the 6th-8th highest wage and transfer fee bill combined.
Someone said on a different page that it also has to do with how the club is funded. In our case Sandgaard is loaning us money. Therefore as a debt it’s included in the restriction.
I think that’s unlikely as it would make a nonsense of the rules, which afaik are based on turnover. Loans are debt, which is what the rules are intended to avoid.
Ipswich’s turnover in L1 in the last ordinary season available -19/20 - was £10.6m whereas Charlton’s is typically about £7.5m.
Applying a simple 60% threshold they would be able to spend circa £6.5m on players’ wages etc but Charlton could only spend about £4.5m.
MK Dons’ turnover is more like £4.2m - which would mean they can only spend £2.5m.
I must admit I’m a little bemused why the Palace kid Rak-Sakyi isn’t getting a loan to a Championship club rather than league One. His recent stats and CV seem to point towards him being quite a player. That’s of course if there is any truth to the rumour to us. I’m suspecting not.
Ipswich have spent 900k on left back Leif Davis from Leeds.
Think it was said elsewhere on this thread earlier but i just dont understand how these clubs, in the same league as us and of a similar size can seemingly just go out and spend the way they do? Are they not subject to the same spending caps as us then? Find it all very strange.
I thought the rules were based on club income, whether that be through receipts or loans. If that is the case, we had the 4th largest attendance average last season, Sunderland promoted, thereafter Wednesday and Ipswich. In Weds case and an average £15 per ticket, I think their income would be c£1.75m greater than ours, delivering about a £1m more in squad fund allowance should they choose to spend that much.
May have interpreted the basic rules incorrectly but in general the much larger average attendances for Weds and Ipswich contributes to their competitiveness. Add to that the three that have come down (particularly based on new Derby investors) and suspect we will have the 6th-8th highest wage and transfer fee bill combined.
Someone said on a different page that it also has to do with how the club is funded. In our case Sandgaard is loaning us money. Therefore as a debt it’s included in the restriction.
I think that’s unlikely as it would make a nonsense of the rules, which afaik are based on turnover. Loans are debt, which is what the rules are intended to avoid.
Ipswich’s turnover in L1 in the last ordinary season available -19/20 - was £10.6m whereas Charlton’s is typically about £7.5m.
Applying a simple 60% threshold they would be able to spend circa £6.5m on players but Charlton could only spend about £4.5m.
Owners can donate money and therefore invest as much as they like.
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
I must admit I’m a little bemused why the Palace kid Rak-Sakyi isn’t getting a loan to a Championship club rather than league One. His recent stats and CV seem to point towards him being quite a player. That’s of course if there is any truth to the rumour to us. I’m suspecting not.
First loans are always unpredictable and it is about finding a style of play that suits the player.
Viera plays in a similar style to Garner and he could come here without moving out and probably be a lot more guaranteed of game time. I have no idea if it is true or not, but a couple of those factors could be more important to player and club than the division they are in.
Ben garner previously worked at palace with the current palace chairman who rated garner highly. So wouldn’t be surprised if we jumped the queue ahead of other clubs in terms of signing Rak-Sakyi.
Ipswich have spent 900k on left back Leif Davis from Leeds.
Think it was said elsewhere on this thread earlier but i just dont understand how these clubs, in the same league as us and of a similar size can seemingly just go out and spend the way they do? Are they not subject to the same spending caps as us then? Find it all very strange.
I thought the rules were based on club income, whether that be through receipts or loans. If that is the case, we had the 4th largest attendance average last season, Sunderland promoted, thereafter Wednesday and Ipswich. In Weds case and an average £15 per ticket, I think their income would be c£1.75m greater than ours, delivering about a £1m more in squad fund allowance should they choose to spend that much.
May have interpreted the basic rules incorrectly but in general the much larger average attendances for Weds and Ipswich contributes to their competitiveness. Add to that the three that have come down (particularly based on new Derby investors) and suspect we will have the 6th-8th highest wage and transfer fee bill combined.
Someone said on a different page that it also has to do with how the club is funded. In our case Sandgaard is loaning us money. Therefore as a debt it’s included in the restriction.
I think that’s unlikely as it would make a nonsense of the rules, which afaik are based on turnover. Loans are debt, which is what the rules are intended to avoid.
Ipswich’s turnover in L1 in the last ordinary season available -19/20 - was £10.6m whereas Charlton’s is typically about £7.5m.
Applying a simple 60% threshold they would be able to spend circa £6.5m on players but Charlton could only spend about £4.5m.
Owners can donate money and therefore invest as much as they like.
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Thanks. That’s what I said, I think. I’m not aware that TS is putting in any money which isn’t a loan (even though he’s not likely to get it back) and therefore it wouldn’t count.
Ben garner previously worked at palace with the current palace chairman who rated garner highly. So wouldn’t be surprised if we jumped the queue ahead of other clubs in terms of signing Rak-Sakyi.
There is also that Gallen / Freedman link which has proved extremely useful so far
Ipswich have spent 900k on left back Leif Davis from Leeds.
Think it was said elsewhere on this thread earlier but i just dont understand how these clubs, in the same league as us and of a similar size can seemingly just go out and spend the way they do? Are they not subject to the same spending caps as us then? Find it all very strange.
I thought the rules were based on club income, whether that be through receipts or loans. If that is the case, we had the 4th largest attendance average last season, Sunderland promoted, thereafter Wednesday and Ipswich. In Weds case and an average £15 per ticket, I think their income would be c£1.75m greater than ours, delivering about a £1m more in squad fund allowance should they choose to spend that much.
May have interpreted the basic rules incorrectly but in general the much larger average attendances for Weds and Ipswich contributes to their competitiveness. Add to that the three that have come down (particularly based on new Derby investors) and suspect we will have the 6th-8th highest wage and transfer fee bill combined.
Someone said on a different page that it also has to do with how the club is funded. In our case Sandgaard is loaning us money. Therefore as a debt it’s included in the restriction.
I think that’s unlikely as it would make a nonsense of the rules, which afaik are based on turnover. Loans are debt, which is what the rules are intended to avoid.
Ipswich’s turnover in L1 in the last ordinary season available -19/20 - was £10.6m whereas Charlton’s is typically about £7.5m.
Applying a simple 60% threshold they would be able to spend circa £6.5m on players but Charlton could only spend about £4.5m.
Owners can donate money and therefore invest as much as they like.
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Thanks. That’s what I said, I think. I’m not aware that TS is putting in any money which isn’t a loan (even though he’s not likely to get it back) and therefore it wouldn’t count.
I was thinking more about Ipswich potentially doing that to give themselves a larger budget.
I must admit I’m a little bemused why the Palace kid Rak-Sakyi isn’t getting a loan to a Championship club rather than league One. His recent stats and CV seem to point towards him being quite a player. That’s of course if there is any truth to the rumour to us. I’m suspecting not.
You could probably have said similar about Gallagher, he's gone from League 1 loan to full international very quickly.
Hopefully IF we do get Rak-Sakyi we get a full seasons worth at least.
I must admit I’m a little bemused why the Palace kid Rak-Sakyi isn’t getting a loan to a Championship club rather than league One. His recent stats and CV seem to point towards him being quite a player. That’s of course if there is any truth to the rumour to us. I’m suspecting not.
You could probably have said similar about Gallagher, he's gone from League 1 loan to full international very quickly.
Hopefully IF we do get Rak-Sakyi we get a full seasons worth at least.
Gallagher wasn't a league one loan. We had him in the championship and probably would have stayed up if we hadn't lost him in the January window
This lad feels he's at the top end of a Premier loanee. Didn't Gallacher win Chelsea youth player of the year before we loaned him? He's Palace so that fucks me off but if he ends up mustard, imagine those stripey twats crying if he got us promoted!
Hate to breaks the news to you but living where I do, Palace fans don't give a flying fuck about Cafc, we are not in their orbit anymore. Most don't even know what division we are in !
This 7 Chips on each shoulder is getting boring but hopefully we have a good relationship with Steve Parish and Ryan Inniss spent 10 years there so he may know the 19 year old.
Rak-Sayki will probably go to a championship side on loan as Baby Zaha will be in demand.
I must admit I’m a little bemused why the Palace kid Rak-Sakyi isn’t getting a loan to a Championship club rather than league One. His recent stats and CV seem to point towards him being quite a player. That’s of course if there is any truth to the rumour to us. I’m suspecting not.
1) Perhaps because Charton are going to be playing Garnerball this season - and Palace believe he could benefit from that?
2) Palace won't want him lost in a Championship squad where his minutes may be limited. If the kid comes to Charlton, they'll expect him to play regularly.
I must admit I’m a little bemused why the Palace kid Rak-Sakyi isn’t getting a loan to a Championship club rather than league One. His recent stats and CV seem to point towards him being quite a player. That’s of course if there is any truth to the rumour to us. I’m suspecting not.
For a first loan, they'll want him to be playing regularly. Send him to the Championship and the risk is he won't get the game time
Anyone able to tell me how many league games this kid from the stripeys has played and how many goals he has scored?
And anyone able to explain what a cheat code is?
I have an idea that most (if not all), of the people using the phrase don’t have a clue either. 🤔
It’s a way of cheating in a computer game, you get a code in some form that you enter that enables you to complete the game much more easily: unlimited lives, unlimited ammunition, unable to be killed-that sort of thing.
Ben garner previously worked at palace with the current palace chairman who rated garner highly. So wouldn’t be surprised if we jumped the queue ahead of other clubs in terms of signing Rak-Sakyi.
There is also that Gallen / Freedman link which has proved extremely useless so far
Ben garner previously worked at palace with the current palace chairman who rated garner highly. So wouldn’t be surprised if we jumped the queue ahead of other clubs in terms of signing Rak-Sakyi.
Good point and with it being a 16 player game now he would get plenty of Minutes especially at home where Cafc will struggle to break teams down if the opposition play a deep counter attacking game. Still seems unlikely but we hope as we are really short of players with the X factor.
Ipswich have spent 900k on left back Leif Davis from Leeds.
Think it was said elsewhere on this thread earlier but i just dont understand how these clubs, in the same league as us and of a similar size can seemingly just go out and spend the way they do? Are they not subject to the same spending caps as us then? Find it all very strange.
I thought the rules were based on club income, whether that be through receipts or loans. If that is the case, we had the 4th largest attendance average last season, Sunderland promoted, thereafter Wednesday and Ipswich. In Weds case and an average £15 per ticket, I think their income would be c£1.75m greater than ours, delivering about a £1m more in squad fund allowance should they choose to spend that much.
May have interpreted the basic rules incorrectly but in general the much larger average attendances for Weds and Ipswich contributes to their competitiveness. Add to that the three that have come down (particularly based on new Derby investors) and suspect we will have the 6th-8th highest wage and transfer fee bill combined.
Someone said on a different page that it also has to do with how the club is funded. In our case Sandgaard is loaning us money. Therefore as a debt it’s included in the restriction.
I think that’s unlikely as it would make a nonsense of the rules, which afaik are based on turnover. Loans are debt, which is what the rules are intended to avoid.
Ipswich’s turnover in L1 in the last ordinary season available -19/20 - was £10.6m whereas Charlton’s is typically about £7.5m.
Applying a simple 60% threshold they would be able to spend circa £6.5m on players but Charlton could only spend about £4.5m.
Owners can donate money and therefore invest as much as they like.
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
Match-day Income
Commercial Income (such as sponsorship)
TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Thanks. That’s what I said, I think. I’m not aware that TS is putting in any money which isn’t a loan (even though he’s not likely to get it back) and therefore it wouldn’t count.
I was thinking more about Ipswich potentially doing that to give themselves a larger budget.
Yes, good point. I haven’t read their accounts but that may well be the case. I was really addressing the idea that TS loans allowed us to spend more on wages under the rules.
I think the larger issue has been Charlton underperforming the likes of Oxford, MK Dons and even Accrington.
Ben garner previously worked at palace with the current palace chairman who rated garner highly. So wouldn’t be surprised if we jumped the queue ahead of other clubs in terms of signing Rak-Sakyi.
Ben garner previously worked at palace with the current palace chairman who rated garner highly. So wouldn’t be surprised if we jumped the queue ahead of other clubs in terms of signing Rak-Sakyi.
Good point and with it being a 16 player game now he would get plenty of Minutes especially at home where Cafc will struggle to break teams down if the opposition play a deep counter attacking game. Still seems unlikely but we hope as we are really short of players with the X factor.
Yes, I've got a dread that it will be the same as under Robinson. All sideways and backwards, slow moving, keeping possession, allowing the opposition to get everyone behind the ball and us being clueless as how to break them down.
Ben garner previously worked at palace with the current palace chairman who rated garner highly. So wouldn’t be surprised if we jumped the queue ahead of other clubs in terms of signing Rak-Sakyi.
Good point and with it being a 16 player game now he would get plenty of Minutes especially at home where Cafc will struggle to break teams down if the opposition play a deep counter attacking game. Still seems unlikely but we hope as we are really short of players with the X factor.
Yes, I've got a dread that it will be the same as under Robinson. All sideways and backwards, slow moving, keeping possession, allowing the opposition to get everyone behind the ball and us being clueless as how to break them down.
Exactly how I see it. Hopefully we will both be pleasantly surprised.
Comments
Another fine addition to the list of players names that are difficult to spell.
That same twitter account claimed we were interested in bringing back aribo for 10 million.
As much as the owner isn't everyone's cup of tea, I think the owner/chairman of Peterboro is going about things the right way for the size of their club. I do think they missed a trick last year and could really have stayed up with a better keeper and one extra defender. But they are in a strong position to go straight back up again because they are run in a sustainable way.
How what Ipswich are doing is within their financial rules, I have no idea. They seem to be spending a fortune.
MK Dons’ turnover is more like £4.2m - which would mean they can only spend £2.5m.
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
Turnover definition
Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover:
However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts. In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.
Viera plays in a similar style to Garner and he could come here without moving out and probably be a lot more guaranteed of game time. I have no idea if it is true or not, but a couple of those factors could be more important to player and club than the division they are in.
Hopefully IF we do get Rak-Sakyi we get a full seasons worth at least.
Hate to breaks the news to you but living where I do, Palace fans don't give a flying fuck about Cafc, we are not in their orbit anymore. Most don't even know what division we are in !
This 7 Chips on each shoulder is getting boring but hopefully we have a good relationship with Steve Parish and Ryan Inniss spent 10 years there so he may know the 19 year old.
Rak-Sayki will probably go to a championship side on loan as Baby Zaha will be in demand.
2) Palace won't want him lost in a Championship squad where his minutes may be limited. If the kid comes to Charlton, they'll expect him to play regularly.
Good point and with it being a 16 player game now he would get plenty of Minutes especially at home where Cafc will struggle to break teams down if the opposition play a deep counter attacking game. Still seems unlikely but we hope as we are really short of players with the X factor.
I think the larger issue has been Charlton underperforming the likes of Oxford, MK Dons and even Accrington.
All sideways and backwards, slow moving, keeping possession, allowing the opposition to get everyone behind the ball and us being clueless as how to break them down.
Hopefully we will both be pleasantly surprised.