Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Owners
Comments
-
It also doesn’t help that Jones is willing to completely bomb out players he’s signed that are on long contractsScoham said:
I wasn’t dismissing the need to increase both, only saying player sales is where the biggest difference should come from.DamoNorthStand said:Scoham said:
Isn’t big player sales our best chance of closing the gap? No doubt there are always ways of bringing more money in, but selling a player for £10-20m is far more than we could bring in from more ticket sales, merchandise, food etc.DamoNorthStand said:
Getting our commercial income fit for purpose would help - and having no commercial lead or CEO will be harming that hugely. Our set up is miles off how a championship club should be structured. Everyone could see the last hire was wrong except the person who made it - despite being told time and time again.redman said:The level of investment in players is also limited by the financial fair play regulations. I must admit I have no idea how close to the limit on this we are, but I suspect, and hope, that there is still some buffer for January, like last season. Until we can get our revenue up somehow, we will continue to have one of the smallest budgets in the league.They need to bring in more senior experience in running sporting organisations and high performing commercial teams. We are 3 or 4 years in and still keep firing blanks here.
It’s not a question of good intentions - it’s one of results. You can’t keep making the same mistakes
Of course, very good point, but we need both.
The other bit we have to consider is to the the player sale model to work well, you need an (arguably) even better player scouting and purchasing model as you are losing a good player who will need replacing.
If we can get the organic baseline of revenue ticking over properly, we at least give ourselves options.
What if a player doesnt want to leave?
What if we can't replace him?
What if the market isnt strong in that position?
What if other clubs inflate their asking prices because they know we have sold TC for £10m for example?
I have said before our way forward is the Millwall model, but their's works because they have an excellent recruitment and scouting record (much better than ours we would agree).
Commercial revenue is clean, and it is there every year. Much easier to plan not to mention put a value on the club.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare to Millwall, most of their big sales have been in the last few years and this is their 9th season in a row at this level.
It takes a few windows at least to get there as there as you need to expand your scouting network from a much more limited one in L1, bring players in (signings and from the academy), and develop them to a point where they attract big bids. That could take a year or two for some players, and even more academy players (think how long TC and Leaburn have been part of the first team).
Millwall sold Esse after 3 seasons in the Championship.
Azeez played for them for 2 seasons, but had several more seasons experience in the Championship and L1 with Reading, and various non-league loans before that.
Flemming was also with them for 2 seasons, but like Azeez had a fair few years of experience at other clubs.
Whether our ownership and set up can get us there is one question, but we haven’t been in this division long enough for players to attract £10m+ offers yet.2 -
Tbf to Jones he cannot be responsible for the length of contracts given out.AberystwythAddick said:
It also doesn’t help that Jones is willing to completely bomb out players he’s signed that are on long contractsScoham said:
I wasn’t dismissing the need to increase both, only saying player sales is where the biggest difference should come from.DamoNorthStand said:Scoham said:
Isn’t big player sales our best chance of closing the gap? No doubt there are always ways of bringing more money in, but selling a player for £10-20m is far more than we could bring in from more ticket sales, merchandise, food etc.DamoNorthStand said:
Getting our commercial income fit for purpose would help - and having no commercial lead or CEO will be harming that hugely. Our set up is miles off how a championship club should be structured. Everyone could see the last hire was wrong except the person who made it - despite being told time and time again.redman said:The level of investment in players is also limited by the financial fair play regulations. I must admit I have no idea how close to the limit on this we are, but I suspect, and hope, that there is still some buffer for January, like last season. Until we can get our revenue up somehow, we will continue to have one of the smallest budgets in the league.They need to bring in more senior experience in running sporting organisations and high performing commercial teams. We are 3 or 4 years in and still keep firing blanks here.
It’s not a question of good intentions - it’s one of results. You can’t keep making the same mistakes
Of course, very good point, but we need both.
The other bit we have to consider is to the the player sale model to work well, you need an (arguably) even better player scouting and purchasing model as you are losing a good player who will need replacing.
If we can get the organic baseline of revenue ticking over properly, we at least give ourselves options.
What if a player doesnt want to leave?
What if we can't replace him?
What if the market isnt strong in that position?
What if other clubs inflate their asking prices because they know we have sold TC for £10m for example?
I have said before our way forward is the Millwall model, but their's works because they have an excellent recruitment and scouting record (much better than ours we would agree).
Commercial revenue is clean, and it is there every year. Much easier to plan not to mention put a value on the club.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare to Millwall, most of their big sales have been in the last few years and this is their 9th season in a row at this level.
It takes a few windows at least to get there as there as you need to expand your scouting network from a much more limited one in L1, bring players in (signings and from the academy), and develop them to a point where they attract big bids. That could take a year or two for some players, and even more academy players (think how long TC and Leaburn have been part of the first team).
Millwall sold Esse after 3 seasons in the Championship.
Azeez played for them for 2 seasons, but had several more seasons experience in the Championship and L1 with Reading, and various non-league loans before that.
Flemming was also with them for 2 seasons, but like Azeez had a fair few years of experience at other clubs.
Whether our ownership and set up can get us there is one question, but we haven’t been in this division long enough for players to attract £10m+ offers yet.2 -
3 weeks of this
Yesterday’s result has certainly had a big impact on the CL masses
Big picture is that we are in a better place than we have been for years and years (and years)8 -
What should he do if they prove to be shite - keep playing them and not replace them?AberystwythAddick said:
It also doesn’t help that Jones is willing to completely bomb out players he’s signed that are on long contractsScoham said:
I wasn’t dismissing the need to increase both, only saying player sales is where the biggest difference should come from.DamoNorthStand said:Scoham said:
Isn’t big player sales our best chance of closing the gap? No doubt there are always ways of bringing more money in, but selling a player for £10-20m is far more than we could bring in from more ticket sales, merchandise, food etc.DamoNorthStand said:
Getting our commercial income fit for purpose would help - and having no commercial lead or CEO will be harming that hugely. Our set up is miles off how a championship club should be structured. Everyone could see the last hire was wrong except the person who made it - despite being told time and time again.redman said:The level of investment in players is also limited by the financial fair play regulations. I must admit I have no idea how close to the limit on this we are, but I suspect, and hope, that there is still some buffer for January, like last season. Until we can get our revenue up somehow, we will continue to have one of the smallest budgets in the league.They need to bring in more senior experience in running sporting organisations and high performing commercial teams. We are 3 or 4 years in and still keep firing blanks here.
It’s not a question of good intentions - it’s one of results. You can’t keep making the same mistakes
Of course, very good point, but we need both.
The other bit we have to consider is to the the player sale model to work well, you need an (arguably) even better player scouting and purchasing model as you are losing a good player who will need replacing.
If we can get the organic baseline of revenue ticking over properly, we at least give ourselves options.
What if a player doesnt want to leave?
What if we can't replace him?
What if the market isnt strong in that position?
What if other clubs inflate their asking prices because they know we have sold TC for £10m for example?
I have said before our way forward is the Millwall model, but their's works because they have an excellent recruitment and scouting record (much better than ours we would agree).
Commercial revenue is clean, and it is there every year. Much easier to plan not to mention put a value on the club.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare to Millwall, most of their big sales have been in the last few years and this is their 9th season in a row at this level.
It takes a few windows at least to get there as there as you need to expand your scouting network from a much more limited one in L1, bring players in (signings and from the academy), and develop them to a point where they attract big bids. That could take a year or two for some players, and even more academy players (think how long TC and Leaburn have been part of the first team).
Millwall sold Esse after 3 seasons in the Championship.
Azeez played for them for 2 seasons, but had several more seasons experience in the Championship and L1 with Reading, and various non-league loans before that.
Flemming was also with them for 2 seasons, but like Azeez had a fair few years of experience at other clubs.
Whether our ownership and set up can get us there is one question, but we haven’t been in this division long enough for players to attract £10m+ offers yet.8 -
To further back this have we actually had anyone Jones has frozen out who has gone on to play at a better level than where we’re currently at.Off_it said:
What should he do if they prove to be shite - keep playing them and not replace them?AberystwythAddick said:
It also doesn’t help that Jones is willing to completely bomb out players he’s signed that are on long contractsScoham said:
I wasn’t dismissing the need to increase both, only saying player sales is where the biggest difference should come from.DamoNorthStand said:Scoham said:
Isn’t big player sales our best chance of closing the gap? No doubt there are always ways of bringing more money in, but selling a player for £10-20m is far more than we could bring in from more ticket sales, merchandise, food etc.DamoNorthStand said:
Getting our commercial income fit for purpose would help - and having no commercial lead or CEO will be harming that hugely. Our set up is miles off how a championship club should be structured. Everyone could see the last hire was wrong except the person who made it - despite being told time and time again.redman said:The level of investment in players is also limited by the financial fair play regulations. I must admit I have no idea how close to the limit on this we are, but I suspect, and hope, that there is still some buffer for January, like last season. Until we can get our revenue up somehow, we will continue to have one of the smallest budgets in the league.They need to bring in more senior experience in running sporting organisations and high performing commercial teams. We are 3 or 4 years in and still keep firing blanks here.
It’s not a question of good intentions - it’s one of results. You can’t keep making the same mistakes
Of course, very good point, but we need both.
The other bit we have to consider is to the the player sale model to work well, you need an (arguably) even better player scouting and purchasing model as you are losing a good player who will need replacing.
If we can get the organic baseline of revenue ticking over properly, we at least give ourselves options.
What if a player doesnt want to leave?
What if we can't replace him?
What if the market isnt strong in that position?
What if other clubs inflate their asking prices because they know we have sold TC for £10m for example?
I have said before our way forward is the Millwall model, but their's works because they have an excellent recruitment and scouting record (much better than ours we would agree).
Commercial revenue is clean, and it is there every year. Much easier to plan not to mention put a value on the club.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare to Millwall, most of their big sales have been in the last few years and this is their 9th season in a row at this level.
It takes a few windows at least to get there as there as you need to expand your scouting network from a much more limited one in L1, bring players in (signings and from the academy), and develop them to a point where they attract big bids. That could take a year or two for some players, and even more academy players (think how long TC and Leaburn have been part of the first team).
Millwall sold Esse after 3 seasons in the Championship.
Azeez played for them for 2 seasons, but had several more seasons experience in the Championship and L1 with Reading, and various non-league loans before that.
Flemming was also with them for 2 seasons, but like Azeez had a fair few years of experience at other clubs.
Whether our ownership and set up can get us there is one question, but we haven’t been in this division long enough for players to attract £10m+ offers yet.5 -
Off_it said:
What should he do if they prove to be shite - keep playing them and not replace them?AberystwythAddick said:
It also doesn’t help that Jones is willing to completely bomb out players he’s signed that are on long contractsScoham said:
I wasn’t dismissing the need to increase both, only saying player sales is where the biggest difference should come from.DamoNorthStand said:Scoham said:
Isn’t big player sales our best chance of closing the gap? No doubt there are always ways of bringing more money in, but selling a player for £10-20m is far more than we could bring in from more ticket sales, merchandise, food etc.DamoNorthStand said:
Getting our commercial income fit for purpose would help - and having no commercial lead or CEO will be harming that hugely. Our set up is miles off how a championship club should be structured. Everyone could see the last hire was wrong except the person who made it - despite being told time and time again.redman said:The level of investment in players is also limited by the financial fair play regulations. I must admit I have no idea how close to the limit on this we are, but I suspect, and hope, that there is still some buffer for January, like last season. Until we can get our revenue up somehow, we will continue to have one of the smallest budgets in the league.They need to bring in more senior experience in running sporting organisations and high performing commercial teams. We are 3 or 4 years in and still keep firing blanks here.
It’s not a question of good intentions - it’s one of results. You can’t keep making the same mistakes
Of course, very good point, but we need both.
The other bit we have to consider is to the the player sale model to work well, you need an (arguably) even better player scouting and purchasing model as you are losing a good player who will need replacing.
If we can get the organic baseline of revenue ticking over properly, we at least give ourselves options.
What if a player doesnt want to leave?
What if we can't replace him?
What if the market isnt strong in that position?
What if other clubs inflate their asking prices because they know we have sold TC for £10m for example?
I have said before our way forward is the Millwall model, but their's works because they have an excellent recruitment and scouting record (much better than ours we would agree).
Commercial revenue is clean, and it is there every year. Much easier to plan not to mention put a value on the club.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare to Millwall, most of their big sales have been in the last few years and this is their 9th season in a row at this level.
It takes a few windows at least to get there as there as you need to expand your scouting network from a much more limited one in L1, bring players in (signings and from the academy), and develop them to a point where they attract big bids. That could take a year or two for some players, and even more academy players (think how long TC and Leaburn have been part of the first team).
Millwall sold Esse after 3 seasons in the Championship.
Azeez played for them for 2 seasons, but had several more seasons experience in the Championship and L1 with Reading, and various non-league loans before that.
Flemming was also with them for 2 seasons, but like Azeez had a fair few years of experience at other clubs.
Whether our ownership and set up can get us there is one question, but we haven’t been in this division long enough for players to attract £10m+ offers yet.
Because that’s a sustainable business model isn’t it.It’s also definitely going to lead to us developing talent we can sell for a significant profit.0 -
They’re all on 4 year contracts so they’re still with us.Crispywood said:
To further back this have we actually had anyone Jones has frozen out who has gone on to play at a better level than where we’re currently at.Off_it said:
What should he do if they prove to be shite - keep playing them and not replace them?AberystwythAddick said:
It also doesn’t help that Jones is willing to completely bomb out players he’s signed that are on long contractsScoham said:
I wasn’t dismissing the need to increase both, only saying player sales is where the biggest difference should come from.DamoNorthStand said:Scoham said:
Isn’t big player sales our best chance of closing the gap? No doubt there are always ways of bringing more money in, but selling a player for £10-20m is far more than we could bring in from more ticket sales, merchandise, food etc.DamoNorthStand said:
Getting our commercial income fit for purpose would help - and having no commercial lead or CEO will be harming that hugely. Our set up is miles off how a championship club should be structured. Everyone could see the last hire was wrong except the person who made it - despite being told time and time again.redman said:The level of investment in players is also limited by the financial fair play regulations. I must admit I have no idea how close to the limit on this we are, but I suspect, and hope, that there is still some buffer for January, like last season. Until we can get our revenue up somehow, we will continue to have one of the smallest budgets in the league.They need to bring in more senior experience in running sporting organisations and high performing commercial teams. We are 3 or 4 years in and still keep firing blanks here.
It’s not a question of good intentions - it’s one of results. You can’t keep making the same mistakes
Of course, very good point, but we need both.
The other bit we have to consider is to the the player sale model to work well, you need an (arguably) even better player scouting and purchasing model as you are losing a good player who will need replacing.
If we can get the organic baseline of revenue ticking over properly, we at least give ourselves options.
What if a player doesnt want to leave?
What if we can't replace him?
What if the market isnt strong in that position?
What if other clubs inflate their asking prices because they know we have sold TC for £10m for example?
I have said before our way forward is the Millwall model, but their's works because they have an excellent recruitment and scouting record (much better than ours we would agree).
Commercial revenue is clean, and it is there every year. Much easier to plan not to mention put a value on the club.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare to Millwall, most of their big sales have been in the last few years and this is their 9th season in a row at this level.
It takes a few windows at least to get there as there as you need to expand your scouting network from a much more limited one in L1, bring players in (signings and from the academy), and develop them to a point where they attract big bids. That could take a year or two for some players, and even more academy players (think how long TC and Leaburn have been part of the first team).
Millwall sold Esse after 3 seasons in the Championship.
Azeez played for them for 2 seasons, but had several more seasons experience in the Championship and L1 with Reading, and various non-league loans before that.
Flemming was also with them for 2 seasons, but like Azeez had a fair few years of experience at other clubs.
Whether our ownership and set up can get us there is one question, but we haven’t been in this division long enough for players to attract £10m+ offers yet.0 -
You're not making any sense mate.AberystwythAddick said:Off_it said:
What should he do if they prove to be shite - keep playing them and not replace them?AberystwythAddick said:
It also doesn’t help that Jones is willing to completely bomb out players he’s signed that are on long contractsScoham said:
I wasn’t dismissing the need to increase both, only saying player sales is where the biggest difference should come from.DamoNorthStand said:Scoham said:
Isn’t big player sales our best chance of closing the gap? No doubt there are always ways of bringing more money in, but selling a player for £10-20m is far more than we could bring in from more ticket sales, merchandise, food etc.DamoNorthStand said:
Getting our commercial income fit for purpose would help - and having no commercial lead or CEO will be harming that hugely. Our set up is miles off how a championship club should be structured. Everyone could see the last hire was wrong except the person who made it - despite being told time and time again.redman said:The level of investment in players is also limited by the financial fair play regulations. I must admit I have no idea how close to the limit on this we are, but I suspect, and hope, that there is still some buffer for January, like last season. Until we can get our revenue up somehow, we will continue to have one of the smallest budgets in the league.They need to bring in more senior experience in running sporting organisations and high performing commercial teams. We are 3 or 4 years in and still keep firing blanks here.
It’s not a question of good intentions - it’s one of results. You can’t keep making the same mistakes
Of course, very good point, but we need both.
The other bit we have to consider is to the the player sale model to work well, you need an (arguably) even better player scouting and purchasing model as you are losing a good player who will need replacing.
If we can get the organic baseline of revenue ticking over properly, we at least give ourselves options.
What if a player doesnt want to leave?
What if we can't replace him?
What if the market isnt strong in that position?
What if other clubs inflate their asking prices because they know we have sold TC for £10m for example?
I have said before our way forward is the Millwall model, but their's works because they have an excellent recruitment and scouting record (much better than ours we would agree).
Commercial revenue is clean, and it is there every year. Much easier to plan not to mention put a value on the club.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare to Millwall, most of their big sales have been in the last few years and this is their 9th season in a row at this level.
It takes a few windows at least to get there as there as you need to expand your scouting network from a much more limited one in L1, bring players in (signings and from the academy), and develop them to a point where they attract big bids. That could take a year or two for some players, and even more academy players (think how long TC and Leaburn have been part of the first team).
Millwall sold Esse after 3 seasons in the Championship.
Azeez played for them for 2 seasons, but had several more seasons experience in the Championship and L1 with Reading, and various non-league loans before that.
Flemming was also with them for 2 seasons, but like Azeez had a fair few years of experience at other clubs.
Whether our ownership and set up can get us there is one question, but we haven’t been in this division long enough for players to attract £10m+ offers yet.
Because that’s a sustainable business model isn’t it.It’s also definitely going to lead to us developing talent we can sell for a significant profit.
What's he supposed to do then?0 -
Is it not the case that the expenditure has to be tied to revenue or you risk ending up with points deductions and other financial fair play restrictions?0
-
85% of revenue is allowed to be spent on wages, transfer Fees, agent fees and manager salary.FreshHaddock said:Is it not the case that the expenditure has to be tied to revenue or you risk ending up with points deductions and other financial fair play restrictions?
based on Rodwell’s comments about revenue we’re generating roughly 24-25M at the moment (4M below average championship revenue excluding parachute payments). So roughly allowed to spend 20M a season at maximum. Owners can do an additional 33M top up over 3 years but doubt they will considering how much they’re already losing.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
If (a big if I know) we were a solid top 6 - 8 side at this point in time, would our commercial revenue and ticket sales be significantly more?
Maybe we would be getting 18-20,000 regularly at the Valley most weeks and maybe 12/13,000 in season ticket sales? The sales revenue if merchandise and food/drinks etc would increase proportionately as well.
BUT - my guess is, our owners (or one of them at least) cannot equate this to the massive increase in loss making spend it would take them to get us there?
In addition the new fair play rules in the Champ would proclude them from just bunging money in without an increase in revenue.
Caught between a rock and the proverbial.......?
I like our owners and just hope they stick with it by the way!0 -
But based on first 3 games we may bect_addick said:
Won’t be there too much longer based on the last couple of performancesRadostanradical said:The fact is some of our so called "fans" will not be happy until someone from the good old days is in charge. If 5 years ago you gave me the choice to be in top 8 in Championship id bite your hand off.1 -
A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.1 -
To me 2 things are clear, these are the best owners we have had in a long time. They may have been fortunate to stumble upon Nathan Jones which has been the main factor behind our success, but most of the time when they talk about football strategy what they say makes sense, and until this summer they have backed the team financially more than I think any of us had expected
I think what else has become clear though is that the investment is being reduced, probably because one significant investor wants out. Where we as fans, manager and players want to continue to push on and progress up the table, I think owners are hoping for that to happen because of Nathan Jones significantly overachieving, rather than them backing him properly to give the best chance of achieving it. As long as we stay up they will be reasonably happy, while they wait for a sale/new investment we need to be a championship club, but they aren't willing to invest enough to push on further than that.
The clear want/need from Jones this summer was a right winger and upgrading the midfield, what was delivered in both of these areas was not enough backing to get what we wanted/needed. That has left us short of quality on the pitch and once again a season where staying up will be a success, so our ambition and probably our progress has stalled. If we do manage to progress this season then that will be down to Jones rather than the ambition of the owners7 -
He may be on a cheaper wage however he would absolutely cost the club more money on a 3-4 year deal rather than slightly more on a 2 year deal.YTS1978 said:A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.Longer contracts can definitely be used to distribute the transfer fee to support the books, but it will have a minor impact on the wages you’re offering the player1 -
Yeah, maybe thats the case. Was just a thought that popped into my head earlier while reading the thread. I literally have no idea what someone like Tanto would be earning and obvs all transfer fees are "undisclosed" so very hard to tell.Crispywood said:
He may be on a cheaper wage however he would absolutely cost the club more money on a 3-4 year deal rather than slightly more on a 2 year deal.YTS1978 said:A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.Longer contracts can definitely be used to distribute the transfer fee to support the books, but it will have a minor impact on the wages you’re offering the player
0 -
To be fair with the amount of journalists reporting for each club these days most fees are near enough announced anyway.YTS1978 said:
Yeah, maybe thats the case. Was just a thought that popped into my head earlier while reading the thread. I literally have no idea what someone like Tanto would be earning and obvs all transfer fees are "undisclosed" so very hard to tell.Crispywood said:
He may be on a cheaper wage however he would absolutely cost the club more money on a 3-4 year deal rather than slightly more on a 2 year deal.YTS1978 said:A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.Longer contracts can definitely be used to distribute the transfer fee to support the books, but it will have a minor impact on the wages you’re offering the playerSince Jones has come in Mesik, Burke, Brooks and Dixon are the only “undisclosed transfers” where there hasn’t been an exact figure reported from a reliable source. Even then 2 of those were youngsters, and Mesik was already confirmed to be 500k or under.What would be interesting to see due to the new financial rules if they start releasing the wage bill strictly for the players and manager on the clubs financial accounts1 -
.0
-
Pure guesswork but I think 5k a week would be a minimum including signing on fees etc.YTS1978 said:
Yeah, maybe thats the case. Was just a thought that popped into my head earlier while reading the thread. I literally have no idea what someone like Tanto would be earning and obvs all transfer fees are "undisclosed" so very hard to tell.Crispywood said:
He may be on a cheaper wage however he would absolutely cost the club more money on a 3-4 year deal rather than slightly more on a 2 year deal.YTS1978 said:A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.Longer contracts can definitely be used to distribute the transfer fee to support the books, but it will have a minor impact on the wages you’re offering the player0 -
ElfsborgAddick said:
Pure guesswork but I think 5k a week would be a minimum including signing on fees etc.YTS1978 said:
Yeah, maybe thats the case. Was just a thought that popped into my head earlier while reading the thread. I literally have no idea what someone like Tanto would be earning and obvs all transfer fees are "undisclosed" so very hard to tell.Crispywood said:
He may be on a cheaper wage however he would absolutely cost the club more money on a 3-4 year deal rather than slightly more on a 2 year deal.YTS1978 said:A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.Longer contracts can definitely be used to distribute the transfer fee to support the books, but it will have a minor impact on the wages you’re offering the player
That's about right - for established first team players (not first contract academy lads) the general rule of thumb is £5-10k a week in the Championship, lower end of that scale for clubs will lower salary budgets - like us.3 -
Sponsored links:
-
Thanks for that Bobby, so it could well be nearer to 10k? Then we bombed him out after a few months.bobmunro said:ElfsborgAddick said:
Pure guesswork but I think 5k a week would be a minimum including signing on fees etc.YTS1978 said:
Yeah, maybe thats the case. Was just a thought that popped into my head earlier while reading the thread. I literally have no idea what someone like Tanto would be earning and obvs all transfer fees are "undisclosed" so very hard to tell.Crispywood said:
He may be on a cheaper wage however he would absolutely cost the club more money on a 3-4 year deal rather than slightly more on a 2 year deal.YTS1978 said:A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.Longer contracts can definitely be used to distribute the transfer fee to support the books, but it will have a minor impact on the wages you’re offering the player
That's about right - for established first team players (not first contract academy lads) the general rule of thumb is £5-10k a week in the Championship, lower end of that scale for clubs will lower salary budgets - like us.
That's a lot of dough to spunk by not giving time and patience.0 -
ElfsborgAddick said:
Thanks for that Bobby, so it could well be nearer to 10k and we bombed him out after a few months?bobmunro said:ElfsborgAddick said:
Pure guesswork but I think 5k a week would be a minimum including signing on fees etc.YTS1978 said:
Yeah, maybe thats the case. Was just a thought that popped into my head earlier while reading the thread. I literally have no idea what someone like Tanto would be earning and obvs all transfer fees are "undisclosed" so very hard to tell.Crispywood said:
He may be on a cheaper wage however he would absolutely cost the club more money on a 3-4 year deal rather than slightly more on a 2 year deal.YTS1978 said:A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.Longer contracts can definitely be used to distribute the transfer fee to support the books, but it will have a minor impact on the wages you’re offering the player
That's about right - for established first team players (not first contract academy lads) the general rule of thumb is £5-10k a week in the Championship, lower end of that scale for clubs will lower salary budgets - like us.
That's a lot of dough to spunk by not giving time and patience.
Nearer to the 5k you originally said I would imagine, based on our revenue and salary budget being amongst the lowest.1 -
Crispywood said:
He may be on a cheaper wage however he would absolutely cost the club more money on a 3-4 year deal rather than slightly more on a 2 year deal.YTS1978 said:A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.Longer contracts can definitely be used to distribute the transfer fee to support the books, but it will have a minor impact on the wages you’re offering the playerThey definitely can't. One of the changes this year is that money counts in the season the instalment of the transfer fee is paid, not spread over the length of the player contract as with the previous rules.0 -
is that $5k a week, year round or in season only? $5k x 52 weeks is a decent wedge for surebobmunro said:ElfsborgAddick said:
Thanks for that Bobby, so it could well be nearer to 10k and we bombed him out after a few months?bobmunro said:ElfsborgAddick said:
Pure guesswork but I think 5k a week would be a minimum including signing on fees etc.YTS1978 said:
Yeah, maybe thats the case. Was just a thought that popped into my head earlier while reading the thread. I literally have no idea what someone like Tanto would be earning and obvs all transfer fees are "undisclosed" so very hard to tell.Crispywood said:
He may be on a cheaper wage however he would absolutely cost the club more money on a 3-4 year deal rather than slightly more on a 2 year deal.YTS1978 said:A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.Longer contracts can definitely be used to distribute the transfer fee to support the books, but it will have a minor impact on the wages you’re offering the player
That's about right - for established first team players (not first contract academy lads) the general rule of thumb is £5-10k a week in the Championship, lower end of that scale for clubs will lower salary budgets - like us.
That's a lot of dough to spunk by not giving time and patience.
Nearer to the 5k you originally said I would imagine, based on our revenue and salary budget being amongst the lowest.0 -
Wasn’t that the point where Charlie was pushed into the background after the Appleton debacle?DamoNorthStand said:J BLOCK said:I think these owners have landed on their feet hiring Nathan Jones.
Came under Charlie's watch funnily enough.0 -
May be a low budget compared toCafcSteve said:Think it’s important to remember that they basically gave us the lowest budget in the league.
Get why some of the new players are being criticised but do we really think that some of them would have been signed if the owners backed Jones more?
Lots of people on here thought that it was a really good transfer window but some of us were always sceptical that we hadn’t addressed the issues from last season enough.
We’re going to struggle to play decent football when we’ve spent much less than our opponents.
Think that it’s going to come down to whether we can grind out wins at home.
most in this league but still a large amount for us and for a normal team coming up .. going to take 3/4 years at this level before we can start buying players for 8 mill plus or pay 35k plus a week but instead of trying to find the negative why not look at the positives.. we offered a deal worth 5/6 mill for a player and have a player on appox 26 to 30k a week ( that come from a WBA coach) … small steps as we get told one thing these don’t want to do is the out the club back into the mess that they took over ..1 -
Grant may have been on 26-30k a week at West Brom because he signed for them for big money when they were in the premier league. But there is absolutely no chance he is earning that now. Probably 12-15k a week if I had to guessRonnieMoore said:
May be a low budget compared toCafcSteve said:Think it’s important to remember that they basically gave us the lowest budget in the league.
Get why some of the new players are being criticised but do we really think that some of them would have been signed if the owners backed Jones more?
Lots of people on here thought that it was a really good transfer window but some of us were always sceptical that we hadn’t addressed the issues from last season enough.
We’re going to struggle to play decent football when we’ve spent much less than our opponents.
Think that it’s going to come down to whether we can grind out wins at home.
most in this league but still a large amount for us and for a normal team coming up .. going to take 3/4 years at this level before we can start buying players for 8 mill plus or pay 35k plus a week but instead of trying to find the negative why not look at the positives.. we offered a deal worth 5/6 mill for a player and have a player on appox 26 to 30k a week ( that come from a WBA coach) … small steps as we get told one thing these don’t want to do is the out the club back into the mess that they took over ..2 -
Year round - and £5k is even better!KiwiValley said:
is that $5k a week, year round or in season only? $5k x 52 weeks is a decent wedge for surebobmunro said:ElfsborgAddick said:
Thanks for that Bobby, so it could well be nearer to 10k and we bombed him out after a few months?bobmunro said:ElfsborgAddick said:
Pure guesswork but I think 5k a week would be a minimum including signing on fees etc.YTS1978 said:
Yeah, maybe thats the case. Was just a thought that popped into my head earlier while reading the thread. I literally have no idea what someone like Tanto would be earning and obvs all transfer fees are "undisclosed" so very hard to tell.Crispywood said:
He may be on a cheaper wage however he would absolutely cost the club more money on a 3-4 year deal rather than slightly more on a 2 year deal.YTS1978 said:A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.Longer contracts can definitely be used to distribute the transfer fee to support the books, but it will have a minor impact on the wages you’re offering the player
That's about right - for established first team players (not first contract academy lads) the general rule of thumb is £5-10k a week in the Championship, lower end of that scale for clubs will lower salary budgets - like us.
That's a lot of dough to spunk by not giving time and patience.
Nearer to the 5k you originally said I would imagine, based on our revenue and salary budget being amongst the lowest.3 -
Isn’t the Championship average now around £15k a week? I know that includes relegated PL clubs, but I’m sure I’ve read about L1, L2 and even some non league players being on big wages for those levels, which can only push Championship wages up.bobmunro said:ElfsborgAddick said:
Pure guesswork but I think 5k a week would be a minimum including signing on fees etc.YTS1978 said:
Yeah, maybe thats the case. Was just a thought that popped into my head earlier while reading the thread. I literally have no idea what someone like Tanto would be earning and obvs all transfer fees are "undisclosed" so very hard to tell.Crispywood said:
He may be on a cheaper wage however he would absolutely cost the club more money on a 3-4 year deal rather than slightly more on a 2 year deal.YTS1978 said:A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.Longer contracts can definitely be used to distribute the transfer fee to support the books, but it will have a minor impact on the wages you’re offering the player
That's about right - for established first team players (not first contract academy lads) the general rule of thumb is £5-10k a week in the Championship, lower end of that scale for clubs will lower salary budgets - like us.
0 -
The average championship wage was 14k in 24/25 according to Kieran Maguire who is the expert in football accounting.Scoham said:
Isn’t the Championship average now around £15k a week? I know that includes relegated PL clubs, but I’m sure I’ve read about L1, L2 and even some non league players being on big wages for those levels, which can only push Championship wages up.bobmunro said:ElfsborgAddick said:
Pure guesswork but I think 5k a week would be a minimum including signing on fees etc.YTS1978 said:
Yeah, maybe thats the case. Was just a thought that popped into my head earlier while reading the thread. I literally have no idea what someone like Tanto would be earning and obvs all transfer fees are "undisclosed" so very hard to tell.Crispywood said:
He may be on a cheaper wage however he would absolutely cost the club more money on a 3-4 year deal rather than slightly more on a 2 year deal.YTS1978 said:A longer contract is security for the player and means the club can spread the wages and fee over a longer financial reporting period. I may be wrong but Tanto on a 4yr deal might actually have been cheaper than a 2yr deal, as he'd have wanted more cash on a shorter. If the player is shit, he's shit, of course though!
Re TC he is 100% a £10m player at this moment in time I'd say.Longer contracts can definitely be used to distribute the transfer fee to support the books, but it will have a minor impact on the wages you’re offering the player
That's about right - for established first team players (not first contract academy lads) the general rule of thumb is £5-10k a week in the Championship, lower end of that scale for clubs will lower salary budgets - like us.Highly doubt any first team or experienced player will be on 5k in the championship considering there are a few L1 clubs who could outcompete that0
