7.4 Million a year on player wages - Ridiculous!

[Huddy 0]

Ive just read that we are apparetly paying 7.4 Million in the last financial year out on wages for players. I just cannot begin to understand how this breaks down, it seems ridiculosuly over the top. Is that figure for just wages as i have interpretted are is it for bonuses, signing on fees and other stuff as well.

That 7.4M work out at £142,000 a week on wages. I cannot see that our player wage bill has gone down hardly since that last financial year, so how can we be paying such high levels on players. We have a squad of 31 players of which we have an average weekly wage (if the initial figure is just wages)  of £4,590 a week, which itself seems extortionate. If you then look at that squad and realise that 11 players are younger players who''s combined weekly wage will not (i guess - allthough anythings possible with NCFC, exceed £11,000 a week. So that leaves 131,000 a week to be spread out over 20 players which gives an average wage for the senior players of £6,550 a week. Thats where our problem lies i''m afraid, because the average wage of alot succesful clubs in this league, will be half of what we are paying.

Your thoughts

[mbncfc 1]

Sorry PGTA (I refuse to note your name change :) )

With Varney rumoured to be on £17,000 pw at Charlton, our wage bill is already acknowledged to be below average for the Championship.

That''s the way it is.

[ricardo 8,033]

[quote user="HUDDY"]

Ive just read that we are apparetly paying 7.4 Million in the last financial year out on wages for players. I just cannot begin to understand how this breaks down, it seems ridiculosuly over the top. Is that figure for just wages as i have interpretted are is it for bonuses, signing on fees and other stuff as well.

That 7.4M work out at £142,000 a week on wages. I cannot see that our player wage bill has gone down hardly since that last financial year, so how can we be paying such high levels on players. We have a squad of 31 players of which we have an average weekly wage (if the initial figure is just wages)  of £4,590 a week, which itself seems extortionate. If you then look at that squad and realise that 11 players are younger players who''s combined weekly wage will not (i guess - allthough anythings possible with NCFC, exceed £11,000 a week. So that leaves 131,000 a week to be spread out over 20 players which gives an average wage for the senior players of £6,550 a week. Thats where our problem lies i''m afraid, because the average wage of alot succesful clubs in this league, will be half of what we are paying.

Your thoughts

[/quote]

That average wage would seem about right to me for a Championship side.

Why are you so surprised?

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="HUDDY"]

Ive just read that we are apparetly paying 7.4 Million in the last financial year out on wages for players. I just cannot begin to understand how this breaks down, it seems ridiculosuly over the top. Is that figure for just wages as i have interpretted are is it for bonuses, signing on fees and other stuff as well.

That 7.4M work out at £142,000 a week on wages. I cannot see that our player wage bill has gone down hardly since that last financial year, so how can we be paying such high levels on players. We have a squad of 31 players of which we have an average weekly wage (if the initial figure is just wages)  of £4,590 a week, which itself seems extortionate. If you then look at that squad and realise that 11 players are younger players who''s combined weekly wage will not (i guess - allthough anythings possible with NCFC, exceed £11,000 a week. So that leaves 131,000 a week to be spread out over 20 players which gives an average wage for the senior players of £6,550 a week. Thats where our problem lies i''m afraid, because the average wage of alot succesful clubs in this league, will be half of what we are paying.

Your thoughts

[/quote]

That average wage would seem about right to me for a Championship side.

Why are you so surprised?

[/quote]

This was reported by the BBC last year so it''s 12 months out of date.  These are also "average" figures.

"Premiership footballers earn an average of £676,000 per year, according to a survey by The Independent and the Professional Footballers'' Association.

That figure, which equates to £13,000 per week, typically rises by between 60% and 100% when performance-related bonuses are taken into account.

Strikers have the highest average annual salary, with £806,000, while midfielders earn about £754,000.

Defenders earn £653,000 on average and Premiership goalkeepers make £533,000.

The basic pay represents an average rise of around 65% from the average figure in 2000.

Players'' bonuses vary enormously - depending on the terms of their deal - but could easily double a footballer''s salary.

Bonuses may include appearance money of about £5,000 per game - even if the player only comes on as a last-minute substitute.

PREMIERSHIP WAGES BY AGE 17-18: £24,500 19-20: £95,000 21-22: £390,000 23-24: £582,500 25-26: £653,000 27-28: £899,500 29-30: £806,000 31-32: £586,000 33+: 660,500 Average: £676,000* (* Average figure takes into account players aged over 20)

Signing-on fees are often a six-figure sum, with payments usually spread over the term of a player''s contract - for example, a £250,000 signing-on fee, spread over three years, would equate to an extra £1,603 per week.

Players can also look forward to a share of a win bonus following each victory and an end-of-season performance bonus - often related to whether a team stays up or qualifies for Europe.

Further bonuses may follow if a club reaches a cup final and there may also be goal bonuses.

Wages are also staggered according to age, with the highest earners tending to be those aged between 27 and 30.

Salaries drop considerably in lower divisions, although they are still substantial.

Championship players earn an average salary of £195,750, League One players £67,850 and League Two £49,600.

About 400 players across the four professional divisions responded to the survey.

Despite the high salary figures, 64% of Premiership footballers who responded said they were in favour of a salary cap, which would mean that no more than 75% of a club''s income should be spent on its wage bill.

Of the others, 35% said they would not support a cap and 1% did not know. "

 

[DisorientatedCanary 0]

our wage bill is below average.....so can''t really complain. but i do think your limiting the number of players who get paid far too much, obviously all the pro''s do. its MAY be possible that some of the ''promising youngesters'' still on scolarships get paid in some way or another, be it £50 a week to cover living or £50 everytime they turn out for the reserves. it could also include the cost of living for some the players put up by other families, since they have to live within 1 hr of Norwich to be allowed to join at that age, which is paid in terms of a wage as opposed to listing it as anything else, since i dont see ''housing for the kiddies'' section in the accounts. but who knows, i certainly dont and i doubt we''ll ever find out.

 

when it comes to finances im more worried about where future investment is coming from right now than where are wage bill sits compared to everyone else.

[Huddy 0]

Why am i suprised? Not suprised, annoyed.

Because clubs such as colchester, plymouth, Bristol City, Blackpool etc etc:alot of smaller clubs than ourselves, with much more limited support are out performing us in the championship. Look at the league table, many of the clubs above us are paying far, far less on wages.

Do you seriously think Colchester or whoever are paying alot of players 6k a week. Colchester have got a hard working, yet talented bunch of players who are probably on an average of 2k a week, 3 maximum. They have 25 proffesionals currently at the club, so if they are on 2.5k a week there wage costs on playing staff is £62,500 a week. Thats £3.25Million a year comapred to our £7.4 Million, when you then look at colhesters performances compared to ours/

A club colchesters side wouldnt survive with our wage budget alone, it would be more than their entire revenue. Think of there gate receipts, non-footballing activities and player sales compared to ours.

Thats why i''m annoyed, not suprised becasue i expected it. If we have financial problems then we need to follow the routes of the ipswich''s and colchsters and learn to compete like them with smaller squads and significantly cut wage bills.!!!

Somebody must realise what i''m getting at!

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="Peter Grants Tartan Army"]

Why am i suprised? Not suprised, annoyed.

Because clubs such as colchester, plymouth, Bristol City, Blackpool etc etc:alot of smaller clubs than ourselves, with much more limited support are out performing us in the championship. Look at the league table, many of the clubs above us are paying far, far less on wages.

Do you seriously think Colchester or whoever are paying alot of players 6k a week. Colchester have got a hard working, yet talented bunch of players who are probably on an average of 2k a week, 3 maximum. They have 25 proffesionals currently at the club, so if they are on 2.5k a week there wage costs on playing staff is £62,500 a week. Thats £3.25Million a year comapred to our £7.4 Million, when you then look at colhesters performances compared to ours/

A club colchesters side wouldnt survive with our wage budget alone, it would be more than their entire revenue. Think of there gate receipts, non-footballing activities and player sales compared to ours.

Thats why i''m annoyed, not suprised becasue i expected it. If we have financial problems then we need to follow the routes of the ipswich''s and colchsters and learn to compete like them with smaller squads and significantly cut wage bills.!!!

Somebody must realise what i''m getting at!

[/quote]

So we should take the same route as ipswich financially. This messageboard gets more ridiculous everyday! What can we learn from them and where have they competed better than us?

 

[canary cherub 1]

£5.3m on non-player wages sounds pretty ridiculous too . . .

 

[Huddy 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Peter Grants Tartan Army"]

Why am i suprised? Not suprised, annoyed.

Because clubs such as colchester, plymouth, Bristol City, Blackpool etc etc:alot of smaller clubs than ourselves, with much more limited support are out performing us in the championship. Look at the league table, many of the clubs above us are paying far, far less on wages.

Do you seriously think Colchester or whoever are paying alot of players 6k a week. Colchester have got a hard working, yet talented bunch of players who are probably on an average of 2k a week, 3 maximum. They have 25 proffesionals currently at the club, so if they are on 2.5k a week there wage costs on playing staff is £62,500 a week. Thats £3.25Million a year comapred to our £7.4 Million, when you then look at colhesters performances compared to ours/

A club colchesters side wouldnt survive with our wage budget alone, it would be more than their entire revenue. Think of there gate receipts, non-footballing activities and player sales compared to ours.

Thats why i''m annoyed, not suprised becasue i expected it. If we have financial problems then we need to follow the routes of the ipswich''s and colchsters and learn to compete like them with smaller squads and significantly cut wage bills.!!!

Somebody must realise what i''m getting at!

[/quote]

So we should take the same route as ipswich financially. This messageboard gets more ridiculous everyday! What can we learn from them and where have they competed better than us?

 

[/quote]

I never said we should take the same financial route as ipswich! This messageboard gets ridiculous when people get misquoted. What is ridiculous about using Ipswich''s techniques in the transfer market? They ae 10th in the league at the moment (yes its early days), and have provided some home entertainment with 9 goals in 3 games.

I fail to see how we can use finances as an excuse in this division. Our wage bill im sure is far higher than ipswich, and certainly alot higher than colchester. My point being that if we''d signed cheap, experienced campainers, and brought in young players from the lower divisionsand mixed them with youngsters, like Magilton has done we''d be a) higher in the leagueand be looking better and b) be in a better financial position come this year end.

If Jim Magilton had had similar money to spend as us, and had been able to sign a couple of prven players i''m sure hed have signed good ones, and Ipswich would be even higher in the league.

[Huddy 0]

[quote user="mystic megson"]

£5.3m on non-player wages sounds pretty ridiculous too . . .

 

[/quote]

Certainly does, i reckon pour non playing wages are the highest in the division. Think of all the stafff we employ all over the place:

Canary Catering, FITC, Ticket Office, Big Training Ground Set Up, more restaurants, all this commercial activity. I would be interested to know how many non footballin employees we had at the club.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="Peter Grants Tartan Army"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Peter Grants Tartan Army"]

Why am i suprised? Not suprised, annoyed.

Because clubs such as colchester, plymouth, Bristol City, Blackpool etc etc:alot of smaller clubs than ourselves, with much more limited support are out performing us in the championship. Look at the league table, many of the clubs above us are paying far, far less on wages.

Do you seriously think Colchester or whoever are paying alot of players 6k a week. Colchester have got a hard working, yet talented bunch of players who are probably on an average of 2k a week, 3 maximum. They have 25 proffesionals currently at the club, so if they are on 2.5k a week there wage costs on playing staff is £62,500 a week. Thats £3.25Million a year comapred to our £7.4 Million, when you then look at colhesters performances compared to ours/

A club colchesters side wouldnt survive with our wage budget alone, it would be more than their entire revenue. Think of there gate receipts, non-footballing activities and player sales compared to ours.

Thats why i''m annoyed, not suprised becasue i expected it. If we have financial problems then we need to follow the routes of the ipswich''s and colchsters and learn to compete like them with smaller squads and significantly cut wage bills.!!!

Somebody must realise what i''m getting at!

[/quote]

So we should take the same route as ipswich financially. This messageboard gets more ridiculous everyday! What can we learn from them and where have they competed better than us?

 

[/quote]

I never said we should take the same financial route as ipswich! This messageboard gets ridiculous when people get misquoted. What is ridiculous about using Ipswich''s techniques in the transfer market? They ae 10th in the league at the moment (yes its early days), and have provided some home entertainment with 9 goals in 3 games.

I fail to see how we can use finances as an excuse in this division. Our wage bill im sure is far higher than ipswich, and certainly alot higher than colchester. My point being that if we''d signed cheap, experienced campainers, and brought in young players from the lower divisionsand mixed them with youngsters, like Magilton has done we''d be a) higher in the leagueand be looking better and b) be in a better financial position come this year end.

If Jim Magilton had had similar money to spend as us, and had been able to sign a couple of prven players i''m sure hed have signed good ones, and Ipswich would be even higher in the league.

[/quote]

I''m sorry if I miss quoted you, I must have mis-understood what you meat by "if we have financial problems then we need to follow the routes of ipswich and colchester"

I can''t comment on any entertainment that may have been at Portman Road because i haven''t seen them play. I doubt their signings are any better than ours. How do you work out they are? I can''t see where magilton is better than Grant. How do you work out he is?

Why do posters continually have to bring up ipswich as a stick to beat the club with.. are you all closet binners??

NCFC.. Pride Of Anglia.. always and forever.

 

[ricardo 8,033]

 

The Accounts say this :-

Football including Academy and support staff                           75 persons.

Other (which presumably means non football related)              134 persons.

[GMF 1,010]

[quote user="ricardo"]

 

The Accounts say this :-

Football including Academy and support staff                           75 persons.

Other (which presumably means non football related)              134 persons.

[/quote]

Are we comparing like with like here?

£7.4M on players wages, divided by 31 professionals, is an average of £238K per player.

£5.5M on the remainder (134 others, plus 44 non playing footballing staff) is an average of £30,898.

Just a thought.

[Huddy 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Peter Grants Tartan Army"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Peter Grants Tartan Army"]

Why am i suprised? Not suprised, annoyed.

Because clubs such as colchester, plymouth, Bristol City, Blackpool etc etc:alot of smaller clubs than ourselves, with much more limited support are out performing us in the championship. Look at the league table, many of the clubs above us are paying far, far less on wages.

Do you seriously think Colchester or whoever are paying alot of players 6k a week. Colchester have got a hard working, yet talented bunch of players who are probably on an average of 2k a week, 3 maximum. They have 25 proffesionals currently at the club, so if they are on 2.5k a week there wage costs on playing staff is £62,500 a week. Thats £3.25Million a year comapred to our £7.4 Million, when you then look at colhesters performances compared to ours/

A club colchesters side wouldnt survive with our wage budget alone, it would be more than their entire revenue. Think of there gate receipts, non-footballing activities and player sales compared to ours.

Thats why i''m annoyed, not suprised becasue i expected it. If we have financial problems then we need to follow the routes of the ipswich''s and colchsters and learn to compete like them with smaller squads and significantly cut wage bills.!!!

Somebody must realise what i''m getting at!

[/quote]

So we should take the same route as ipswich financially. This messageboard gets more ridiculous everyday! What can we learn from them and where have they competed better than us?

 

[/quote]

I never said we should take the same financial route as ipswich! This messageboard gets ridiculous when people get misquoted. What is ridiculous about using Ipswich''s techniques in the transfer market? They ae 10th in the league at the moment (yes its early days), and have provided some home entertainment with 9 goals in 3 games.

I fail to see how we can use finances as an excuse in this division. Our wage bill im sure is far higher than ipswich, and certainly alot higher than colchester. My point being that if we''d signed cheap, experienced campainers, and brought in young players from the lower divisionsand mixed them with youngsters, like Magilton has done we''d be a) higher in the leagueand be looking better and b) be in a better financial position come this year end.

If Jim Magilton had had similar money to spend as us, and had been able to sign a couple of prven players i''m sure hed have signed good ones, and Ipswich would be even higher in the league.

[/quote]

I''m sorry if I miss quoted you, I must have mis-understood what you meat by "if we have financial problems then we need to follow the routes of ipswich and colchester"

I can''t comment on any entertainment that may have been at Portman Road because i haven''t seen them play. I doubt their signings are any better than ours. How do you work out they are? I can''t see where magilton is better than Grant. How do you work out he is?

Why do posters continually have to bring up ipswich as a stick to beat the club with.. are you all closet binners??

NCFC.. Pride Of Anglia.. always and forever.

 

[/quote]

I hate Ipswich!

Thats why i find the current situation even more annoying.

With the limited funds Magilton''s had compared to the £2.5 Million Grant''s spent this summer alone, and the current positions, and performances i''d say Magilton has done a far better job than Grant.

With regard to entertainment i''d say 9 goals in  3 home games with a +7 goal difference is more entertaining than our 4 from 3 with a +1 goal difference. They have picked up 9 points to our 6, which at the moment i realise is the only difference beteen the teams.

From seeing ipswich on sky last week, they have got together a young, talented side with some good experienced players and are playing good attacking football at home.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

PGTA - I see where you are coming from and the league table does back up your view. So can I take it that you also believe that we are better than Leicester and that the so called "cook and her cohorts" are doing a better job here than Mandaric is doing there? [;)]

 

[T07 0]

Well if you made up your mind what your rant was about we might understand you