Jump to content
hepphep

Pukki's extension is for £50k per week?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

 

   9 hours ago,  Parma Ham's gone mouldy said: 

We don’t have the money, so our risks must be more calculated. Football is the life we have chosen though. There are costs and costs. You can choose not to service your car and call it a saving. There are real-world examples that are not ‘rolling the dice on another new player that might not come off’. 

Buendia was a proven weapon at Norwich. Pukki is proven at Norwich. Toney is proven at Brentford.

Eriksen was top quality on short-term risk with high upside and public ambition-showing to existing Brentford players. Rather the opposite of the psychological effect on the remaining Norwich players upon pre-season sale of Buendia.

Read Darren Eadie’s article on Jonny Rowe for an insight into what players really think and feel. What they have to go through to make make it. How they clearly know who the difference-makers are. 

It is telling, true and revealing.

 Parma 
———————-

I’ll leave the last word to the loved, esteemed and present Daniel Farke:

’We chose to sell Buendia’

Parma 

Parma, I have read the piece on Rowe, and it is interesting, particularly about his character, and potentially in a very good way. I hadn't seen that quote from Farke, but there are always degrees of free will or lack of in any choice.

What I think is an established fact is that Buendia wanted Norwich City to accept Aston Villa's offer. As to how much he wanted us to accept the offer and what Buendia's reaction would have been if we had rejected it I have no idea. But that he wanted to leave had to be factored into that choice we made. Bon weekend à vous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

I found the figures being talked about surprising. Dont know if this is at all accurate, but found this on player wages. Bear in mind it is not up to date so I think represents Championship wages. If Football Manager is at all based on reality, players will have a 30% (or similar) wage increase clause on promotion

 

https://footballleaguefc.com/norwich-city-2019-20-player-wages/

That's what they always ask for, I always reduce that to 10% and they always accept 😀

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

I found the figures being talked about surprising. Dont know if this is at all accurate, but found this on player wages. Bear in mind it is not up to date so I think represents Championship wages. If Football Manager is at all based on reality, players will have a 30% (or similar) wage increase clause on promotion

 

https://footballleaguefc.com/norwich-city-2019-20-player-wages/

We know for a fact that city spent £89 million on wages and last time we're in the Premier League. It won't be much different this time, probably a little higher. Even if we spent £20 million on support staff and non first-team players, which I very much doubt, that would still leave £70 million to be shared between 25 players. 

I have no idea about any wage cap or or how this is distributed. I have no inside knowledge - I am only referring to the statutory accounts. However, it is pretty clear that's some of the things that have been said about our wage offers are simply nonsense. People just believe it, because it is said over and over and over again. 

I'm not even arguing that our wage bill is competitive. It will be one of the lowest in the Premier League. But when people say we only offer £20,000 or £30,000 a week it just has to be nonsense.

Either that or I'm completely missing something? 🤯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/03/2022 at 13:54, TheGunnShow said:

Can see Teemu dropping to number 10 next season and playing a shade deeper. As others have said, his link-up play is very good and he could well be our Stiepermann replacement.

A front four of Idah, Sargent, Rashica and Pukki would cause a lot of trouble with their workrate, trickiness, size, and strength. Under Farke, we had to slowly keep the ball as if we were without it for long periods, the extra size and power of opposing teams would wear us down, so our keeping hold of it made them run instead. It also put a premium on fast, incisive passes that cut a defence up - Buendia and Vrancic's forte, whilst Cantwell and Stiepermann could also find one.

If we're playing with a genuine winger in Rashica, then we need more strength up top to keep the ball up there. That's where Idah and Sargent together come in. I thought those two were looking quite good together as both pose fairly similar problems, although Sargent's workrate is better and Idah looks faster but it did mean we were able to hold the ball up far more often, allowing the team to reorganise or get up the field.

Pukki is one of the best championship strikers in recent years, just generally a top level striker. Makes no sense moving him away from that position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, shruk4 said:

Pukki is one of the best championship strikers in recent years, just generally a top level striker. Makes no sense moving him away from that position.

Generally agreed, but look how he played when Idah was up top. Pukki tended to drop somewhat. He still started ostensibly as a striker, but then tended to play it a bit deeper-lying so Idah was leading the line.

If we don't have the likes of Cantwell, Vrancic, and Buendia to hit the channel balls Teemu thrives on when breaking on goal, his workrate and link-up play mean he poses a different set of threats. Or he could arrive late and get his chances that way.

I agree with you in that you find space for Pukki where possible. I just think if Idah and Sargent look like staples of a Smith set-up that this is how it could pan out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Generally agreed, but look how he played when Idah was up top. Pukki tended to drop somewhat. He still started ostensibly as a striker, but then tended to play it a bit deeper-lying so Idah was leading the line.

If we don't have the likes of Cantwell, Vrancic, and Buendia to hit the channel balls Teemu thrives on when breaking on goal, his workrate and link-up play mean he poses a different set of threats. Or he could arrive late and get his chances that way.

I agree with you in that you find space for Pukki where possible. I just think if Idah and Sargent look like staples of a Smith set-up that this is how it could pan out.

Pukki is of course perfectly capable of being sort of a second striker who sort of roams a bit inbetween the line. But the role of someone like Stiepermann I cant see at all. Pukki's best characteristic is movement in behind lines. Having him play deeper would nulify that. Why would you use a perfectly good square peg for a round hole?

I dont think Dean Smith necessarily is completely allergic to playing the ball along the ground. Its just that our midfield is so abysmal for Premier league level that at times Smith has gone for a simpler 4-4-2 with long balls style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shruk4 said:

Pukki is of course perfectly capable of being sort of a second striker who sort of roams a bit inbetween the line. But the role of someone like Stiepermann I cant see at all. Pukki's best characteristic is movement in behind lines. Having him play deeper would nulify that. Why would you use a perfectly good square peg for a round hole?

I dont think Dean Smith necessarily is completely allergic to playing the ball along the ground. Its just that our midfield is so abysmal for Premier league level that at times Smith has gone for a simpler 4-4-2 with long balls style.

Stiepermann played the no. 10 role strangely, but effectively - as you've said, Pukki's perfectly capable of roaming between the lines and I think that's precisely what he will do more and more of under Smith as Idah's more of an attacker who leads lines, and is less effective in deeper positions. 

I think we're seeing the no. 10 role a bit differently here. All I'm basically saying is Pukki's got a different attacking midfield behind him that doesn't play to his strengths in the same way as Cantwell, Buendia, Vrancic, Stiepermann et al, so when he's up top he will use his innate intelligence to play the game differently.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/03/2022 at 15:32, hepphep said:

Read from one news site that The Athletic (cannot confirm this from Athletic due to paywall) has article claiming that club's option to extend Pukki's contract comes with £50k / week salary, even if we play Championship.

That sure makes decision bit harder than originally thought. 

So, if the claim is correct, do you think we should still keep Pukki? And do you think club will use the extension option?

Surely even those fans who don't think Pukki can cut it at this level recognise this is a no-brainer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/03/2022 at 13:44, Badger said:

We know for a fact that city spent £89 million on wages and last time we're in the Premier League. It won't be much different this time, probably a little higher. Even if we spent £20 million on support staff and non first-team players, which I very much doubt, that would still leave £70 million to be shared between 25 players. 

I have no idea about any wage cap or or how this is distributed. I have no inside knowledge - I am only referring to the statutory accounts. However, it is pretty clear that's some of the things that have been said about our wage offers are simply nonsense. People just believe it, because it is said over and over and over again. 

I'm not even arguing that our wage bill is competitive. It will be one of the lowest in the Premier League. But when people say we only offer £20,000 or £30,000 a week it just has to be nonsense.

Either that or I'm completely missing something? 🤯

That isn't completely true- I think the accounts from that period were filled over 13 months rather than 12- which means our wage budget for that season is likely nearer the £80m mark. Still significant but worth noting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/03/2022 at 13:45, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

We don’t have the money, so our risks must be more calculated. Football is the life we have chosen though. There are costs and costs. You can choose not to service your car and call it a saving. There are real-world examples that are not ‘rolling the dice on another new player that might not come off’. 

Buendia was a proven weapon at Norwich. Pukki is proven at Norwich. Toney is proven at Brentford.

Eriksen was top quality on short-term risk with high upside and public ambition-showing to existing Brentford players. Rather the opposite of the psychological effect on the remaining Norwich players upon pre-season sale of Buendia.

Read Darren Eadie’s article on Jonny Rowe for an insight into what players really think and feel. What they have to go through to make make it. How they clearly know who the difference-makers are. 

It is telling, true and revealing.

 Parma 

I don’t think Buendia/Toney is an apt comparison. Toney had had one great Championship season without being proven at PL level- indeed even now he’s still got development ahead. I don’t recall any serious interest in him last summer as clubs were probably looking to wait and see if he could step up, much as they did when he moved from Peterborough. 
 

Selling Buendia was more like our sales of Maupay, Benrahma and Watkins. All at the maximum value they’d attract while at Brentford in the Championship. Each wanted to move to make the step up- Benrahma wanted to go a season earlier but was persuaded to stay. Maybe he and Watkins might have stayed had we gone up in 2020. 
 

I think had we been you, we’d have sold Buendia a season earlier and rebuilt around new players after relegation (if we go down, Toney, Norgaard, Henry and Raya will almost certainly be sold, some of them might anyway, Eriksen obviously would go and even if he stayed, a season of him destroying the Championship would just make the rest of the squad complacent in relying on him).

It’s a dilemma regarding Pukki because he will only have resale value this summer, even if he accepted a contract beyond the one year he has left. He’d undoubtedly score a lot again in the Championship. But then what? You go up again and have a 34 year old striker you’ve chucked all your money at. Take £10m from whoever wins the play offs. It’ll buy a good prospect at Championship level who’ll take £20k a week and they can develop alongside Rowe and Idah. Build a team who’ll get better in the PL because they’ll have had a season to grow together and have a decade of careers in front of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, king canary said:

That isn't completely true- I think the accounts from that period were filled over 13 months rather than 12- which means our wage budget for that season is likely nearer the £80m mark. Still significant but worth noting.

Probably around the mid 80s millions, as the 13th month will have been at championship levels, (I think?). I don't think that it makes that much difference to the overall point - I think that I was very "generous" in allocating £20 million on support staff, non first team players etc in the first place.

The point I was making that when people say we are only paying £20,000 to £30,000 with a £40,000 cap, just doesn't add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Badger said:

Probably around the mid 80s millions, as the 13th month will have been at championship levels, (I think?). I don't think that it makes that much difference to the overall point - I think that I was very "generous" in allocating £20 million on support staff, non first team players etc in the first place.

The point I was making that when people say we are only paying £20,000 to £30,000 with a £40,000 cap, just doesn't add up.

Yeah that is probably a fair number.

I don't claim to understand how these things work but does the total wage spend include things like employer NI? Or does that go elsewhere?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yeah that is probably a fair number.

I don't claim to understand how these things work but does the total wage spend include things like employer NI? Or does that go elsewhere?

Yes - good point - I hadn't considered this! It does include the NI payments, which will reduce the headline amount paid per week significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Badger said:

Yes - good point - I hadn't considered this! It does include the NI payments, which will reduce the headline amount paid per week significantly.

The accounts for that 2019-20 season give two figures. One for overall staff costs of £89m, which includes salaries for directors, all staff salaries, plus loan salaries, pension costs and social security costs. Do SS costs include NI contributions?

Wages: £73m

Loans etc: £5.5m

Social security: £9.7m

Pensions: £300,000

The second figure is for total wage costs, and is also £89m!

So it is a fair assumption they are talking about the same thing, although the titles they give are slightly different. I think the reason for giving the TWC figure is that it is one of the club's key performance indicators, and so expressed as a percentage of turnover.

The club used to give a figure for player wages as a percentage of turnover as this key performance indicator, which was a useful guide.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point of if its good value will depend more on us having some players who will give him the ball when he needs it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

The accounts for that 2019-20 season give two figures. One for overall staff costs of £89m, which includes salaries for directors, all staff salaries, plus loan salaries, pension costs and social security costs. Do SS costs include NI contributions?

Wages: £73m

Loans etc: £5.5m

Social security: £9.7m

Pensions: £300,000

The second figure is for total wage costs, and is also £89m!

So it is a fair assumption they are talking about the same thing, although the titles they give are slightly different. I think the reason for giving the TWC figure is that it is one of the club's key performance indicators, and so expressed as a percentage of turnover.

The club used to give a figure for player wages as a percentage of turnover as this key performance indicator, which was a useful guide.

 

A very basic google suggests employer NI contributions sit at just under 14%- so £9.7m on wages of £73m sounds about right to me?

I'm assuming the loans etc means salaries paid to loan players, rather than loan fees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, king canary said:

A very basic google suggests employer NI contributions sit at just under 14%- so £9.7m on wages of £73m sounds about right to me?

I'm assuming the loans etc means salaries paid to loan players, rather than loan fees?

Yes and yes, I would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brighton accounts published yesterday. They showed the owners total investment to be £427 million so far + still losing money. That's the level of subsidy that buys you mid table premier league status! 

What happens when the money runs out? Who will give us this much?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Badger said:

Brighton accounts published yesterday. They showed the owners total investment to be £427 million so far + still losing money. That's the level of subsidy that buys you mid table premier league status! 

What happens when the money runs out? Who will give us this much?

 

TBF, that investment by Tony Bloom includes the construction of the AMEX (they didn't have a ground or training facilities before, we have the Carra & Colney), and is over 15 seasons (construction of the AMEX began in 2008, Bloom was backing them from about a year before).  On that basis, I would estimate he has subsidised the club c. £10m a season since, he spends more on his horses.  I appreciate £10m a season is well out of Smith & Jones capability, but effectively it is probably paid out of the return on his savings from the sale of his company and is used as a little bit of a tax shelter.  He certainly ain't no rich oil sheik, but is the only sort of owner that would be interested in Norwich. 

Now come on guys, someone out there must know someone who is about to divest themselves of their business for a big fortune and will then be looking for something to do with the returns on their return so as to avoid tax. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

On that basis, I would estimate he has subsidised the club c. £10m a season since, he spends more on his horses.

This isn't inflation adjusted 😁

More seriously, the real loses have come keeping Brighton in the Premier league. 

Losses after tax:

18-19 - £21.2 million

19-20 - £67.2 million

20-21 - £50 million (EBIT - Swiss ramble hasn't covered it yet).

But I would love a Tony Bloom at Norwich! Just an indication of the sort of scale of gift we might need! Two other points of relevance:

1. Brighton's ground/ attendance is bigger than ours so greater revenue from this source.

2. They initially stayed up using Chris Hughton's highly pragmatic style of play. This is an issue that I feel is given insufficient attention whilst we discuss the "need for more funding." Most sides that stay up don't do it with pretty football!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Badger said:

This isn't inflation adjusted 😁

More seriously, the real loses have come keeping Brighton in the Premier league. 

Losses after tax:

18-19 - £21.2 million

19-20 - £67.2 million

20-21 - £50 million (EBIT - Swiss ramble hasn't covered it yet).

But I would love a Tony Bloom at Norwich! Just an indication of the sort of scale of gift we might need! Two other points of relevance:

1. Brighton's ground/ attendance is bigger than ours so greater revenue from this source.

2. They initially stayed up using Chris Hughton's highly pragmatic style of play. This is an issue that I feel is given insufficient attention whilst we discuss the "need for more funding." Most sides that stay up don't do it with pretty football!

Whoa! I hadn't done any in depth research before quoting £10m, but that is surprising to see it creeping up, he really has bitten the bug, I thought he was more sensible than that given the way he manages his racing team!  

The question of playing style is a good one that is raised regularly, the answer from most fans is that it just isn't "the Norwich way".  Hughton gave it his best shot, but it was bloody boring and a great turn off.  Therein lies the dilemma between the pragmatists and those fans who like their Saturday afternoons full of a range of emotions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Whoa! I hadn't done any in depth research before quoting £10m, but that is surprising to see it creeping up, he really has bitten the bug, I thought he was more sensible than that given the way he manages his racing team!  

The question of playing style is a good one that is raised regularly, the answer from most fans is that it just isn't "the Norwich way".  Hughton gave it his best shot, but it was bloody boring and a great turn off.  Therein lies the dilemma between the pragmatists and those fans who like their Saturday afternoons full of a range of emotions.  

I posted this some years back:

In 2016, after Brighton had announced a £25.9m loss for a season in which they had failed to get promoted (with the FFP loss £39m over three seasons but some bits of losses are allowable) owner Tony Bloom summarised the dilemma and the subsequent temptation:

"Our ambition remains for the club's teams to play at the highest level possible. As chairman (and lifelong supporter of the club), I will do everything I possibly can to achieve that and remain fully committed. Any Championship club without parachute payments wishing to compete for promotion will inevitably make significant losses. It remains a delicate balancing act for the board as we strive to achieve our ultimate aim."

Brighton then got promoted and have never been charged with breaking FFP, but it is a fair guess that if they hadn’t gone up that next season the cost of another failed attempt would have been problematic.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Brighton then got promoted and have never been charged with breaking FFP, but it is a fair guess that if they hadn’t gone up that next season the cost of another failed attempt would have been problematic.

It looks like they are going to change FFP rules + Euro qualification rules as well - both of which wil make it harder for even clubs with sugar daddies to break into the top 6. No guarantee that this will be passed down to the championship, but probably will be?

Basic idea for sustainability rules (ex FFP) is wages + amortisation can only be 70% of turnover (although there is still debate about the exact amount - some want higher).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Badger said:

It looks like they are going to change FFP rules + Euro qualification rules as well - both of which wil make it harder for even clubs with sugar daddies to break into the top 6. No guarantee that this will be passed down to the championship, but probably will be?

Basic idea for sustainability rules (ex FFP) is wages + amortisation can only be 70% of turnover (although there is still debate about the exact amount - some want higher).

Would that 70 per cent figure include any player bonuses for either getting to or staying in the Premier League?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current majority stakeholder at Leeds paid £60 million for the club in 2017 and has a deal to sell his remaining shares in 2024 which if it goes through will see him make a profit of £300 million+ overall, it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:

The current majority stakeholder at Leeds paid £60 million for the club in 2017 and has a deal to sell his remaining shares in 2024 which if it goes through will see him make a profit of £300 million+ overall, it can be done.

Hi DB.

Do you have a source for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Badger said:

It looks like they are going to change FFP rules + Euro qualification rules as well - both of which wil make it harder for even clubs with sugar daddies to break into the top 6. No guarantee that this will be passed down to the championship, but probably will be?

Basic idea for sustainability rules (ex FFP) is wages + amortisation can only be 70% of turnover (although there is still debate about the exact amount - some want higher).

God I hate these rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:

The current majority stakeholder at Leeds paid £60 million for the club in 2017 and has a deal to sell his remaining shares in 2024 which if it goes through will see him make a profit of £300 million+ overall, it can be done.

I have managed to find something in the Daily Mail saying that he bought it for £45 million and the deal could be worth over £475 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...