Simon Jordon on Talk Sport

[Badger 2,405]

16 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

No I don't know but I do know that we are probably the lowest in the league.

So you don't know our wage budget; you don't know their wage budget but you do know ours is lower? 🤦‍♂️

Our wage budget will be higher than Brentford's and similar to Watford's and Burnley's - the comparator clubs that you mentioned in your previous post - and of course we spent more than them in the transfer market this summer. Just because you think something doesn't make it true you know.

[Badger 2,405]

20 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Although Norwich are struggling in this season's Premier League, they aren't exactly doing it on the cheap - spending £24.2m on player wages.

Worryingly, £10.8m is being spent on defenders such as Ben Gibson, Christoph Zimmermann and Ozan Kabak, which has leaked 25 league goals this term.

Perhaps Norwich's biggest mistake is investing just £1.9m on their strikers, with the team scoring a mere three goals in ten Premier League games since their promotion.

I don't know where you got these figures from but they are nonsense!

We spent 66.6 million on wages last year in the Championship! The year before we spent £89 million in the Premier League - if we had stayed up it is likely that would have been closer to £100 million with bonuses.

 

[kirku 1,332]

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

So you don't know our wage budget; you don't know their wage budget but you do know ours is lower? 🤦‍♂️

Our wage budget will be higher than Brentford's and similar to Watford's and Burnley's - the comparator clubs that you mentioned in your previous post - and of course we spent more than them in the transfer market this summer. Just because you think something doesn't make it true you know.

I would expect our wage bill to be comfortably in the bottom 3 in the division, with Brentford probably at the bottom.

You'd imagine Burnley's would be a fair bit higher than ours, given how long they've spent in the league.

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Bet this isn't far wrong, considering they do have the benefit of historic financial accounts for estimates.

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/payroll/

The figures are nonsense! look at our own published accounts for last year!

[Mello Yello 2,289]

4 minutes ago, Badger said:

So you don't know our wage budget; you don't know their wage budget but you do know ours is lower? 🤦‍♂️

Our wage budget will be higher than Brentford's and similar to Watford's and Burnley's - the comparator clubs that you mentioned in your previous post - and of course we spent more than them in the transfer market this summer. Just because you think something doesn't make it true you know.

So, you don't really or actually know our wage budget either?.....Or are you basing your wage budget knowledge on guesstimate FACT?....

[Badger 2,405]

3 minutes ago, kirku said:

I would expect our wage bill to be comfortably in the bottom 3 in the division, with Brentford probably at the bottom.

You'd imagine Burnley's would be a fair bit higher than ours, given how long they've spent in the league.

Yes - not far out, I'd guess. Higher than Brentford and not much different to Burnley/ Watford etc

[kirku 1,332]

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

So you don't know our wage budget; you don't know their wage budget but you do know ours is lower? 🤦‍♂️

Our wage budget will be higher than Brentford's and similar to Watford's and Burnley's - the comparator clubs that you mentioned in your previous post - and of course we spent more than them in the transfer market this summer. Just because you think something doesn't make it true you know.

I would expect our wage bill to be comfortably in the bottom 3 in the division, with Brentford probably at the bottom.

You'd imagine Burnley's would be a fair bit higher than ours, given how long they've spent in the league.

[Badger 2,405]

1 minute ago, Mello Yello said:

So, you don't really or actually know our wage budget either?.....Or are you basing your wage budget knowledge on guesstimate FACT?....

Basing it on previous year's accounts for ourselves and other teams. 

[kirku 1,332]

4 minutes ago, Badger said:

The figures are nonsense! look at our own published accounts for last year!

Player and staff costs from the accounts are not the same, though. The £89m figure will include many other costs aside from just players' wages.

Edited January 13, 2022 by kirku

[Badger 2,405]

1 minute ago, kirku said:

You'd imagine Burnley's would be a fair bit higher than ours, given how long they've spent in the league.

Burnley spent £100 million on wages in their last accounts - which would include bonuses for staying up. If we stayed up we would be similar. (But I take your point that wages creep the longer you stay in the Premier League - it's why they have 2 levels of parachute payments.)

2 minutes ago, kirku said:

Player and staff costs from the accounts are not the same, though. The £89m figure will include many other costs aside from just players' wages.

Yes I know - they will, for example, include NICs and pension contributions, but wages will be overwhelmingly the largest constituent element. They are the closest we will ever get to the actual wages and are directly comparable between clubs + actually a more relevant figure than wages alone - if you run a business you have look at total staff costs, not just wages as pensions/ NICs etc have a huge impact.

[kirku 1,332]

14 minutes ago, Badger said:

Yes I know - they will, for example, include NICs and pension contributions, but wages will be overwhelmingly the largest constituent element. They are the closest we will ever get to the actual wages and are directly comparable between clubs + actually a more relevant figure than wages alone - if you run a business you have look at total staff costs, not just wages as pensions/ NICs etc have a huge impact.

In terms of what it constitutes, it's a tough one (I'm fully aware of on-costs), as the bonuses could be a hefty element of that figure (including signing-on bonuses for new signings, potentially paying up contracts of departing players, bonuses for non-playing staff). 

Similarly, a team like Everton, as an example, is unlikely to have a bonus related to survival and much more likely to have one related to final league position (weighted towards European qualification, you'd imagine). You would also have to factor in domestic and European cup runs. 

So in many ways, the best comparator would be average basic wage across the squad, to my mind. Certainly when discussing the impact of transfer fees against wage bill.

Whether the figures that are publicly available are accurate, is another matter..

Edited January 13, 2022 by kirku

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

15 minutes ago, kirku said:

Player and staff costs from the accounts are not the same, though. The £89m figure will include many other costs aside from just players' wages.

Yes. The problem, or rather the reason the overall staff costs figure always gets quoted, is because it is the only one that appears in the accounts for all clubs, and so comparisons can be made. In the past it was possible, for example, to work out the figure for player wages for NCFC, but that could not be done with all other clubs.

[kirku 1,332]

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes. The problem, or rather the reason the overall staff costs figure always gets quoted, is because it is the only one that appears in the accounts for all clubs, and so comparisons can be made. In the past it was possible, for example, to work out the figure for player wages for NCFC, but that could not be done with all other clubs.

As above, a lot of potential nuance and noise in that figure. Agree it's the most accurate figure but hard to use it as a comparator between clubs without taking into account a lot of context, I'd say.

Could be nearly as misleading as listening to the Mirror (other rags are available)..

[Badger 2,405]

2 minutes ago, kirku said:

So in many ways, the best comparator would be average basic wage across the squad, to my mind. 

Whether the figures that are publicly available are accurate, is another matter..

It isn't. The staff cost figure is the most reliable proxy we are ever likely to get. It's not perfect, but gives a pretty clear indication.

[kirku 1,332]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

It isn't. The staff cost figure is the most reliable proxy we are ever likely to get. It's not perfect, but gives a pretty clear indication.

Hmmm.

It'd be interesting to see the figures for when Sheff Utd finished well in the league - as you'd expect quite a bit of "noise" in those figures and not necessarily reflective of the point being made in the thread.

Do you know if onerous contracts were split out? I'm sure I remember there being a line in there for Naismith etc so I wonder if those are rolled into "staff costs" or not

[Big Vince 318]

11 minutes ago, Badger said:

It isn't. The staff cost figure is the most reliable proxy we are ever likely to get. It's not perfect, but gives a pretty clear indication.

Reading all of the above, I am going to stick with my contention that you need ten players on £90,000 per week and a £200,000,000 turnover to be a viable EPL club on any kind of ongoing basis.

[kirku 1,332]

Couple of interesting bits I found from Swiss Ramble (from previous Prem season):

 

Interesting given the lack of signings that year - notes that this includes additional payments due to clubs promotion clauses. Notable one being Buendia, you'd imagine. 

[kirku 1,332]

Championship Season:

£67m wage bill was still one of the highest in the Championship, though the three largest were all inflated by promotion payments

 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

21 minutes ago, Badger said:

It isn't. The staff cost figure is the most reliable proxy we are ever likely to get. It's not perfect, but gives a pretty clear indication.

Please provide accurate figures that backs up this argue. ASAP Please.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

53 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

So, you don't really or actually know our wage budget either?.....Or are you basing your wage budget knowledge on guesstimate FACT?....

Yep, just goes around being condensing and spouting rubbish like the rest of us 🤪

[Badger 2,405]

2 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Please provide accurate figures that backs up this argue. ASAP Please.

You could look at the figures from Swiss Ramble above.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Just now, Kenny Foggo said:

Yep, just goes around being condensing and spouting rubbish like the rest of us 🤪

What else in life is there?......

[Badger 2,405]

1 minute ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Yep, just goes around being condensing and spouting rubbish like the rest of us 🤪

As I said, based upon the previous accounts of NCFC and other teams. What is your information judged on?

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

You could look at the figures from Swiss Ramble above.

No Please provide accurate figures that backs up this argue. ASAP Please.

Thanks

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

So it's not the wages, its not the budget for players, it's not the owners, it's not the recruitment......

Must be those pesky fan again.... BOO!

 

What a joke

[hogesar 9,658]

3 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

So it's not the wages, its not the budget for players, it's not the owners, it's not the recruitment......

Must be those pesky fan again.... BOO!

 

What a joke

There's no need to play silly-bugg*r just because you said our wages are the lowest in the division and they aren't (or more to the point, won't be when accounts are produced).

As the reliable Swiss Ramble shows, we paid more in wages than others but still came bottom. This year we will have spent more than Brentford but finish below them. 

Our wages have always been 'competitive' with the bottom 5 clubs or so in the league. Not hugely surprising for a promoted club.

[hogesar 9,658]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

So you don't know our wage budget; you don't know their wage budget but you do know ours is lower? 🤦‍♂️

Our wage budget will be higher than Brentford's and similar to Watford's and Burnley's - the comparator clubs that you mentioned in your previous post - and of course we spent more than them in the transfer market this summer. Just because you think something doesn't make it true you know.

Quite. 

We've generally been 'competitive' with the bottom 5 or so clubs on overall wage expenditure when in the Prem.

What would be more interesting to see is what difference the attribution of those monies make to a sides success. Where I believe (although point me in the direction if I'm wrong) we're different is that we don't have a big disparity between the top, top earners and the typical playing squad. Has there even been any sort of research into how a lowly-positioned club having a couple of "top" players earning "top" money, relatively speaking, compares to a club who spreads its salaries fairly evenly?

There's always been the argument that for example, paying Emi so much more than the rest of the squad could cause disharmony but I wonder if there's evidence for that or if having one or two star players on the £70k sort of wage is a 'worthwhile' spread of finances.

[Uncle Fred 526]

It’s heartbreaking to see the humiliation that the stowmarket 2 are reaping on the club

how much longer can this situation go on. Nothing from them what so ever about how they are going to get this sorted, not a word

they are an absolute disgrace 

[Badger 2,405]

49 minutes ago, kirku said:

Hmmm.

It'd be interesting to see the figures for when Sheff Utd finished well in the league - as you'd expect quite a bit of "noise" in those figures and not necessarily reflective of the point being made in the thread.

Do you know if onerous contracts were split out? I'm sure I remember there being a line in there for Naismith etc so I wonder if those are rolled into "staff costs" or not

I presume that's the 19-20 season. They spent less than us - 77.9 million - they hadn't been in EPL for ages so had fewer players on the high wages that we had but would have received higher bonuses.

I don't know about onerous contracts but think they are treated as exceptional items?

[Badger 2,405]

25 minutes ago, hogesar said:

There's always been the argument that for example, paying Emi so much more than the rest of the squad could cause disharmony but I wonder if there's evidence for that or if having one or two star players on the £70k sort of wage is a 'worthwhile' spread of finances.

I doubt if there's any reliable research - you can't tell from accounts how the wage cost figures is broken down - it's just rumour. It has allegedly caused disharmony in the past, but there is also the ratchet effect it has on other players wages. If he's getting x, I must be worth similar etc.