So our current average weekly player wage is £45,000..

[Badger 2,405]

18 minutes ago, aBee said:

Not as far as I’m aware but from all the reports I’ve seen our top paid player last season barring Eriksen was Ajer on £35k a week. Toney and Raya on a bit less. Eriksen was on about £60k and was offered around £100k to sign a 3 year deal but obviously Man U blew that away. 
 

Our DoF said our PL wage bill would be likely to be a bit lower than our last Championship one including promotion bonuses and we were budgeting on finishing 20th (cf Forest this season, LOL). 

I was pretty certain that your wage budget would be lower than ours, but had trouble convincing some on here that we weren't lowest paying team in the PL. It will be interesting to see if you manage to keep it down - it sort of creeps up as you sign more players directly into the club whilst it's in the premier league.

[Badger 2,405]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yeah I was wondering how much of that £73m would include fees we'd have had to pay for Normann and Kabak, along with various bonuses on other signings. £73m is a lot though!

I'm not sure if Normann and Kabak are part of the £73 million as we knew by the time the accounts were drawn up that we would not be having to pay for them, although I suppose that @30th June they were still registered to us. It would need one of the accountants to clarify this.

The other thing is that our loanees are not included in the £118 million gives for wages (staff costs) - there is another c£15 million for loanees, taking the total costs to £133 million!

[shefcanary 2,408]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I'm not sure if Normann and Kabak are part of the £73 million as we knew by the time the accounts were drawn up that we would not be having to pay for them, although I suppose that @30th June they were still registered to us. It would need one of the accountants to clarify this.

The other thing is that our loanees are not included in the £118 million gives for wages (staff costs) - there is another c£15 million for loanees, taking the total costs to £133 million!

Badger, a contingent liability note is for payments that are relatively likely to crystallise in the future based on a future event that could occur, based on knowledge at the time the accounts are signed off not at the balance sheet date.

In the case of Normann and Kabak, their registrations were released on the balance sheet date, any payments due to them would have been accrued in the accounts as they had already crystallised.

The £73m is thus for payments to players or the team they were signed from on promotion / national team appearances / appearances for the club / goals scored for the club / qualifying for Europe etc.

Further to my comment in the thread above, lose to Luton tonight, if the accounts were signed off tomorrow, with the likelihood of promotion then much diminished you could wipe most of that £73m away. 🤨

[Badger 2,405]

Thanks Shef - I rather suspected it did not apply to Kabak + Normann.

Re your point about losing to Luton tonight, I don't think it would diminish our hopes that long. Even if we did not go up this year, the contingent liabilities would presumably be over the length of their contract, so we would still have to shell out if we went up in 23-24 and stayed up and qualified for Europe in 24-25! 😀 We might have to throw the game rather than risk qualifying for the Champions League.

[shefcanary 2,408]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

Thanks Shef - I rather suspected it did not apply to Kabak + Normann.

Re your point about losing to Luton tonight, I don't think it would diminish our hopes that long. Even if we did not go up this year, the contingent liabilities would presumably be over the length of their contract, so we would still have to shell out if we went up in 23-24 and stayed up and qualified for Europe in 24-25! 😀 We might have to throw the game rather than risk qualifying for the Champions League.

True, but are you really sure that if we fail to go up this season, we can still have a chance next season when three more relegated clubs bristling with parachute payments will enter the fray. I would have said yes, but that was before I saw the accounts that show there's little scope for a 2nd season assault, we have to do it this year. But even if we did, unless the Milwaukee boys stump up some cash I don't rate our chances of putting up a fight. 

Whoever is managing.

[Badger 2,405]

1 minute ago, shefcanary said:

True, but are you really sure that if we fail to go up this season, we can still have a chance next season when three more relegated clubs bristling with parachute payments will enter the fray. I would have said yes, but that was before I saw the accounts that show there's little scope for a 2nd season assault, we have to do it this year. But even if we did, unless the Milwaukee boys stump up some cash I don't rate our chances of putting up a fight. 

Whoever is managing.

I rather suspect that if we don't go up this year there will be quite a big clear out - we have quite a lot of players in the final years of their contracts and a lot of next year's money will have to be used to anticipate future years without parachute payments

However, I'm relatively sanguine about our prospects in future years. Even without parachute payments we are likely to remain one of the higher payers in the championship and be an attractive proposition to players and I strongly suspect that likely to future changes to profit and sustainability rules will be in our favour.