Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
First Wizard

Hammers 6 million bid for Holt!

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Wet Sham were relegated to the championship with £70million debts and are by all acounts another £30million worse off after their championship season. £12million of this is transfer debts, £42 is owed to banks. Their turnover next year will be extreamly similar to ours given that the vast majority is made up by sky and yet they can offer our captain a triple your pay deal from £15k to £40k per week according to the article. Wet Sham owners are not stupid, they are successful business people so I dont really buy the whole ''they are gambling the clubs existance'' and it really highlights two things to me, firstly how much having wealthy owners as a saftey net if required can mean more creative freedom for the accountants and their purse strings and secondly, how our lenders have really handcuffed to club with their repayment inflexibility.

 

 

[/quote]West Ham must be paying a lot of interest on their debts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly people should stop referring to £6 million because its not £6 million its £4 million. We cannot budget to receive the add ons as we have no idea whether or not we will get them

Personally I don;t think £4m for our captain, top scorer and a player who got 17 goals last season playing in the top flight is anywhere near enough. We won''t be able to afford Rhodes for that and he is completely unproven above League 1 level anyway. We might just about get an Ince or a Matt Phillips from Blackpool for it.

As for the debate about spending we obviously cannot go crazy and put the clubs financial future in jeopardy but by the same token if we cannot afford to compete with the likes of southampton and West Ham then it is going to be a virtually impossible task for Hughton to keep us in the division. i read this morning that Tottenham rae now paying Bale £115K a week. That is what we are up against and we are going to have to decide if we are going to allow ourselves to be even vaguely competitive or continue to place ourselves at a huge disadvantage to virtually every other team in the league. In my view, whilst it has to be done sensibly (i.e. there must remain a limit, relegation clauses etc) we have to start pushing the boat out a bit more and paying competitive wages because if we don''t then we will not keep any of our top players for more than a season or two as they will be poached by others offering to double, triple or even quadruple their wages.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]

Firstly people should stop referring to £6 million because its not £6 million its £4 million. We cannot budget to receive the add ons as we have no idea whether or not we will get them

Personally I don;t think £4m for our captain, top scorer and a player who got 17 goals last season playing in the top flight is anywhere near enough. We won''t be able to afford Rhodes for that and he is completely unproven above League 1 level anyway. We might just about get an Ince or a Matt Phillips from Blackpool for it.

As for the debate about spending we obviously cannot go crazy and put the clubs financial future in jeopardy but by the same token if we cannot afford to compete with the likes of southampton and West Ham then it is going to be a virtually impossible task for Hughton to keep us in the division. i read this morning that Tottenham rae now paying Bale £115K a week. That is what we are up against and we are going to have to decide if we are going to allow ourselves to be even vaguely competitive or continue to place ourselves at a huge disadvantage to virtually every other team in the league. In my view, whilst it has to be done sensibly (i.e. there must remain a limit, relegation clauses etc) we have to start pushing the boat out a bit more and paying competitive wages because if we don''t then we will not keep any of our top players for more than a season or two as they will be poached by others offering to double, triple or even quadruple their wages.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Which is why Jim that my thesies as to why Smith and Jones are holding/blocking our future is 100% spot on. [:|]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]Serious question Jim - what do you think the ''limit'' should be?[/quote]

 

I don''t know Lizard but as a percentage of our overall turnover I believe our wage bill must be by far the lowest in the premiership. I would think there is scope to up it quite a bit whilst still being vaguely responsible. The likes of Villa, Everton, Newcastle 9and probably now west Ham) pay most of their players £35-40K a week. We obviously can;t pay as much as them but i would think that we will need to start offering our top guys wages which are close enough to this level to reduce the temptation to jump ship - maybe £25-30K a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again.

 

 

We can not and should never go down the route of overstretching ourselves.   We are what we are and should live with that.  We can still have ambition, hopes a well run club and be able to watch decent football.     We are not being held back by anybody.    Just get over yourselves and appreciate things for what they are instead of having some pie in the sky ambition that is unsustainable and would set our club back twenty years.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]

[quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]Serious question Jim - what do you think the ''limit'' should be?[/quote]

 

I don''t know Lizard but as a percentage of our overall turnover I believe our wage bill must be by far the lowest in the premiership. I would think there is scope to up it quite a bit whilst still being vaguely responsible. The likes of Villa, Everton, Newcastle 9and probably now west Ham) pay most of their players £35-40K a week. We obviously can;t pay as much as them but i would think that we will need to start offering our top guys wages which are close enough to this level to reduce the temptation to jump ship - maybe £25-30K a week.

[/quote]

 

Of course we may already be in the process of doing this with the new contracts our players have been signing. I would hope so anyway as otherwise it will be very easy for people to start tempting our players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Wiz"][quote user="Jim Smith"]

Firstly people should stop referring to £6 million because its not £6 million its £4 million. We cannot budget to receive the add ons as we have no idea whether or not we will get them

Personally I don;t think £4m for our captain, top scorer and a player who got 17 goals last season playing in the top flight is anywhere near enough. We won''t be able to afford Rhodes for that and he is completely unproven above League 1 level anyway. We might just about get an Ince or a Matt Phillips from Blackpool for it.

As for the debate about spending we obviously cannot go crazy and put the clubs financial future in jeopardy but by the same token if we cannot afford to compete with the likes of southampton and West Ham then it is going to be a virtually impossible task for Hughton to keep us in the division. i read this morning that Tottenham rae now paying Bale £115K a week. That is what we are up against and we are going to have to decide if we are going to allow ourselves to be even vaguely competitive or continue to place ourselves at a huge disadvantage to virtually every other team in the league. In my view, whilst it has to be done sensibly (i.e. there must remain a limit, relegation clauses etc) we have to start pushing the boat out a bit more and paying competitive wages because if we don''t then we will not keep any of our top players for more than a season or two as they will be poached by others offering to double, triple or even quadruple their wages.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Which is why Jim that my thesies as to why Smith and Jones are holding/blocking our future is 100% spot on. [:|]

[/quote]

 

 

Wiz - I agree in a way. I do think in the past this was the case. However, having got to the promised land of the premiership i have now reverted to finding it preferable that we are owned by good people who care about the club. My point is that there are sufficient riches around in the premiersgip now that we ought to be able to take a little bit more a punt in a sustainable way that does not involve a sugar daddy. Maybe thats unrealistic though on my part!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
£6m is a massive amount for him and we need to bite any clubs hand off if they offer any where near that...This is the last time we''d be able to get a good fee for Holt. Imagine if he signed a 3 year contract with us today, but then wanted to move on in a couple of seasons... no way would we get anywhere near £6m for him. Also his price will never be higher... Holty has been amazing for us, but we can''t assume that he''d be able to get 17 goals again next season nor the season after that. Remember that he really wasn''t doing the business for us at the start of last season (people quickly forget that Morison was the main man for while), so theres a risk that he''ll start next season the same way.The other factor is I actually think we probably can replace him for £6m. Morison cost circa £3.5m I believe and scored 9 goals last season - not bad. Cisse cost Newcastle around £10m and scored 13 in 14 games. Just because English clubs are overpricing there players doesn''t mean we have to pay those prices for a replacement - it just means we need to look abroad. I''m sure all of you would be more than happy to "swap" Holt + £4m for a player of Cisse''s quality (not saying we can attract a player of Cisses quality, but it just puts it into perspective).The final thing to consider is if we did say spend £6m on say Jordan Rhodes as a replacement, while he may not score 17 goals in the prem his value will likely remain the same. If he does score 17 goals, then all of a sudden he''ll be worth loads. i.e. we spend £6m and will have an asset that''s worth £6m to £20m... if West Ham pay £6m for Holt then they''ll have an asset that will between £2m to £0 due to his age.To put all this into perspective, Kuyt and Berbatov are the same age as Holt. They are both much better than Holt (both play for their country and both have played for Champion League level sides). Kuyt has just moved for €1m, while Berbatov will likely move for a minimum fee (Leverkusen want him, but only on a free transfer). Granted there are other factors involved with those 2, but clubs don''t pay £10m for a player in their 30s (especially one who has only had 1 season at a top level his entire career).Note: for those that say that Holt is worth £70m to us as he keeps us in the prem, then you need to think 1) Holt alone didn''t keep us up last season 2) if he doesn''t perform and we get relegated then we''d be in an even worse position than if we sell and 3) We''ll need to replace Holt in a couple of seasons anyway, so might as well do it now when we can get £6m for Holt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim - I agree with your analysis of the type of club we are and the type of club we should try to be. There is of course a very good role model for a team who are successful and who consistently live within their means - Arsenal of course! (so it can be done).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What everyone neglects to take into account is that if Holt want''s to leave ther is nothing other to do than accept 4 million with add ons!

 

If he has made his mind up it''s no good keping a player who doesn''t want to be here.

 

Personally I believe Holt and his agent have already made plans to move on and this weeks meeting will be to clarify this. I don''t think the club will match West Hams wages and even if Holt goes up to 25K a week I bet MacNally will stick to his guns on a 2 year contract!

 

I think it''s time to wave goodbye to Holt, thanks for the past three years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Paulo_M"]£6m is a massive amount for him and we need to bite any clubs hand off if they offer any where near that...

This is the last time we''d be able to get a good fee for Holt. Imagine if he signed a 3 year contract with us today, but then wanted to move on in a couple of seasons... no way would we get anywhere near £6m for him. Also his price will never be higher... Holty has been amazing for us, but we can''t assume that he''d be able to get 17 goals again next season nor the season after that. Remember that he really wasn''t doing the business for us at the start of last season (people quickly forget that Morison was the main man for while), so theres a risk that he''ll start next season the same way.

The other factor is I actually think we probably can replace him for £6m. Morison cost circa £3.5m I believe and scored 9 goals last season - not bad. Cisse cost Newcastle around £10m and scored 13 in 14 games. Just because English clubs are overpricing there players doesn''t mean we have to pay those prices for a replacement - it just means we need to look abroad. I''m sure all of you would be more than happy to "swap" Holt + £4m for a player of Cisse''s quality (not saying we can attract a player of Cisses quality, but it just puts it into perspective).

The final thing to consider is if we did say spend £6m on say Jordan Rhodes as a replacement, while he may not score 17 goals in the prem his value will likely remain the same. If he does score 17 goals, then all of a sudden he''ll be worth loads. i.e. we spend £6m and will have an asset that''s worth £6m to £20m... if West Ham pay £6m for Holt then they''ll have an asset that will between £2m to £0 due to his age.

To put all this into perspective, Kuyt and Berbatov are the same age as Holt. They are both much better than Holt (both play for their country and both have played for Champion League level sides). Kuyt has just moved for €1m, while Berbatov will likely move for a minimum fee (Leverkusen want him, but only on a free transfer). Granted there are other factors involved with those 2, but clubs don''t pay £10m for a player in their 30s (especially one who has only had 1 season at a top level his entire career).

Note: for those that say that Holt is worth £70m to us as he keeps us in the prem, then you need to think 1) Holt alone didn''t keep us up last season 2) if he doesn''t perform and we get relegated then we''d be in an even worse position than if we sell and 3) We''ll need to replace Holt in a couple of seasons anyway, so might as well do it now when we can get £6m for Holt.[/quote]

 

IT WON''T BE 6 MILLION PAULO!

 

It will be 4 million......up front......and a possible 2 million later.

 

Sorry for shouting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird, ive been arguing for 3 pages about the fact that this tread and potential more similar would be far less likely if we adopted a wage structure which is suitable for the division we are currently in but recieved no agreement.. now someone else mentions it... :). Ive suggested that the wage structure could be improved by paying back our existing debt over a longer term to a different lender and this has caused crys of derision for many claiming im out of touch with current economics (dispite the fact that lending could come from outside a NR postcode and some countries and companies are enjoying some of the best growth in their history) so I put forward another, half the transfer budget. If we only spend £10million on a couple of ''next level'' players and throw £10million at the wage structure it potentially puts us in the £25-£30k bracket for top earners.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If West Ham need another striker and have that kind of money to spend then it begs the question as to why they don''t go for Rhodes instead.

 

The answer is that Big Sam, who has been around the block a few times, considers that GH is a better bet than Rhodes in order to keep his side up next season. 

 

That is our priority as well. If, at the end of the day, we have to sell Holt, because he still wants out after Hughton''s reconsiliatory efforts, then I would rather sell him to the likes of Sunderland or Everton for less money as I feel that these two clubs will not be direct rivals to us next season.

 

To sell him to Spam would be a ''double wammy.'' IMO. We lose our leading striker for a crucial season and lose him to a rival.

 

I am not bothered about Holt''s suitability in two season''s time, I am concerned only with the priority of survival next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

Firstly people should stop referring to £6 million because its not £6 million its £4 million. We cannot budget to receive the add ons as we have no idea whether or not we will get them

Personally I don;t think £4m for our captain, top scorer and a player who got 17 goals last season playing in the top flight is anywhere near enough. We won''t be able to afford Rhodes for that and he is completely unproven above League 1 level anyway. We might just about get an Ince or a Matt Phillips from Blackpool for it.

As for the debate about spending we obviously cannot go crazy and put the clubs financial future in jeopardy but by the same token if we cannot afford to compete with the likes of southampton and West Ham then it is going to be a virtually impossible task for Hughton to keep us in the division. i read this morning that Tottenham rae now paying Bale £115K a week. That is what we are up against and we are going to have to decide if we are going to allow ourselves to be even vaguely competitive or continue to place ourselves at a huge disadvantage to virtually every other team in the league. In my view, whilst it has to be done sensibly (i.e. there must remain a limit, relegation clauses etc) we have to start pushing the boat out a bit more and paying competitive wages because if we don''t then we will not keep any of our top players for more than a season or two as they will be poached by others offering to double, triple or even quadruple their wages.

 

 

[/quote]

 

To throw some figures into the wage limit argument. According to the accounts, in the Championship we spent 47 per cent of our turnover on player wage costs. Two points for starters - "player wage costs" is undefined .Does it means just wages or bonuses and other stuff?. Secondly if that 47 per cent figure seems low compared to that for other clubs, their figures are for all staff wage costs and not just for players.

That said, rounding the 47 per cent figure up to 50 per cent  for simplicity''s sake, on turnover of £23m that meant £11.5m for player wage costs, which works out at an average of £460,000 per player in a 25-man squad, and just under £9,000 a week.

Taking the estimated turnover of £75m for the PL season just gone, and that 50 per cent figure as having stayed the same, that gives £37.5m for player wage costs, which is £1.5m per player and an average weekly cost of just under £30,000.

Which, plainly, we didn''t pay. Certainly not as a basic weekly wage. By all acconts Holt was on something between £15,000 and £17,000 a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

If West Ham need another striker and have that kind of money to spend then it begs the question as to why they don''t go for Rhodes instead.

 

The answer is that Big Sam, who has been around the block a few times, considers that GH is a better bet than Rhodes in order to keep his side up next season. 

 

That is our priority as well. If, at the end of the day, we have to sell Holt, because he still wants out after Hughton''s reconsiliatory efforts, then I would rather sell him to the likes of Sunderland or Everton for less money as I feel that these two clubs will not be direct rivals to us next season.

 

To sell him to Spam would be a ''double wammy.'' IMO. We lose our leading striker for a crucial season and lose him to a rival.

 

I am not bothered about Holt''s suitability in two season''s time, I am concerned only with the priority of survival next season.

[/quote]

 

Huzzah!

 

And lets not forget how Spam ''dallied'' with payment for Cashton and Has Been Green......money up front first Brady, and tell them to bog off......again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]

What everyone neglects to take into account is that if Holt want''s to leave ther is nothing other to do than accept 4 million with add ons!

 

If he has made his mind up it''s no good keping a player who doesn''t want to be here.

 

Personally I believe Holt and his agent have already made plans to move on and this weeks meeting will be to clarify this. I don''t think the club will match West Hams wages and even if Holt goes up to 25K a week I bet MacNally will stick to his guns on a 2 year contract!

 

I think it''s time to wave goodbye to Holt, thanks for the past three years.

[/quote]

 

While I agree that keeping a player who wants to leave isnt usualy the best option, I wouldn''t go so far as to say we have no choice Indy. It maybe benificial to have even a sulky Holt coming off the bench as a bit part player for us than to have him scoring for fun for West Ham next season and the are examples of keeping a player that have worked.., Modric, Fabregas..

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Broadstairs.   Now is what matters.  

 

 

It''s a case of slowly slowly catchy monkey.    We develop along a business plan that is sustainable.  We rid ourselves of debt and build over a number of years.    Anything else leads to the club having problems ten years down the line.    We will - if we keep our ''soul'' and not sell out to greed and money -  keep a well run club playing attractive football.    Whether it is in the prem or not is not the issue in my mind.    Of course that is important, but growing the club on a sustainable basis means we are much more likely to be able to bounce back up if we did go down a division.   Thats what happened in the 80''s - we were strong as a club and stuck to our principles.   Someone mentioned Arsenal as a club who live within their means.    They are a good example (except for the fact they are like a foreign club in an English league).    We could well be paving the way and showing other clubs how it can be done without selling out.     Thats why the future is bright.   

 

 

Throwing money at things isn''t the answer.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="Paulo_M"]£6m is a massive amount for him and we need to bite any clubs hand off if they offer any where near that...This is the last time we''d be able to get a good fee for Holt. Imagine if he signed a 3 year contract with us today, but then wanted to move on in a couple of seasons... no way would we get anywhere near £6m for him. Also his price will never be higher... Holty has been amazing for us, but we can''t assume that he''d be able to get 17 goals again next season nor the season after that. Remember that he really wasn''t doing the business for us at the start of last season (people quickly forget that Morison was the main man for while), so theres a risk that he''ll start next season the same way.The other factor is I actually think we probably can replace him for £6m. Morison cost circa £3.5m I believe and scored 9 goals last season - not bad. Cisse cost Newcastle around £10m and scored 13 in 14 games. Just because English clubs are overpricing there players doesn''t mean we have to pay those prices for a replacement - it just means we need to look abroad. I''m sure all of you would be more than happy to "swap" Holt + £4m for a player of Cisse''s quality (not saying we can attract a player of Cisses quality, but it just puts it into perspective).The final thing to consider is if we did say spend £6m on say Jordan Rhodes as a replacement, while he may not score 17 goals in the prem his value will likely remain the same. If he does score 17 goals, then all of a sudden he''ll be worth loads. i.e. we spend £6m and will have an asset that''s worth £6m to £20m... if West Ham pay £6m for Holt then they''ll have an asset that will between £2m to £0 due to his age.To put all this into perspective, Kuyt and Berbatov are the same age as Holt. They are both much better than Holt (both play for their country and both have played for Champion League level sides). Kuyt has just moved for €1m, while Berbatov will likely move for a minimum fee (Leverkusen want him, but only on a free transfer). Granted there are other factors involved with those 2, but clubs don''t pay £10m for a player in their 30s (especially one who has only had 1 season at a top level his entire career).Note: for those that say that Holt is worth £70m to us as he keeps us in the prem, then you need to think 1) Holt alone didn''t keep us up last season 2) if he doesn''t perform and we get relegated then we''d be in an even worse position than if we sell and 3) We''ll need to replace Holt in a couple of seasons anyway, so might as well do it now when we can get £6m for Holt.[/quote]

 

IT WON''T BE 6 MILLION PAULO!

 

It will be 4 million......up front......and a possible 2 million later.

 

Sorry for shouting.

[/quote]Personally think £4m + add-ons would be an excellent bit of business too (especially considering that I''m sure we could top up £4m and say spend £6/7m on a replacement)... much below that then I''d agree it wouldn''t be worth it for us.The thing is we''d probably structure deals for a replacement in the same way anyway (e.g. if we spent £7m on a striker, it''s highly unlikely that we''d pay £7m up front... to be honest I believe most transfer deals are much more complex than a club just handing over £x on day 1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 mill is good money for Holt but its only good money if we spend it on a good replacement and the Leon Bests of this world are not a good repacement imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purple - I did the same as you and hauled out the club accounts and I think I can shed some further light. Page 13 lists the total STAFF COSTS. For last season these actually total £18,445,000. This total includes promotion bonuses of £3,817,000.

The total STAFF COST for last season therefore works out at 80% of turnover. I''m not sure what this proves - but there''s rather a difference between 47% and 80%!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]

What everyone neglects to take into account is that if Holt want''s to leave ther is nothing other to do than accept 4 million with add ons!

 

If he has made his mind up it''s no good keping a player who doesn''t want to be here.

 

Personally I believe Holt and his agent have already made plans to move on and this weeks meeting will be to clarify this. I don''t think the club will match West Hams wages and even if Holt goes up to 25K a week I bet MacNally will stick to his guns on a 2 year contract!

 

I think it''s time to wave goodbye to Holt, thanks for the past three years.

[/quote]

 

Yes there is. We do not have to accept an offer unless it is good enough. If we don;t accept an offer then holt either knuckles down or if he;s going to be disruptive he gets the Tevez treatment or we loan him to a non rival. We do not and should not sell him on the cheap to a relegation rival just because he has decided he wants to move. Any deal must be right for the club.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you assume that Holt is amoung the top earners at the club last season on say £17kpw and the average was £12k for the 25 man squad the percentage of turnover being used for players wages is 20%.

20% of turnover for player wages is not sufficent. Its not sustainable in this division and its probably not very good for team moral. Why can the club not find a more familiar 50% we have used in the championship?, I only guess that the 30% drop is due to having to pay back the debt in a 24 month timeframe. what else can it be?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

So if you assume that Holt is amoung the top earners at the club last season on say £17kpw and the average was £12k for the 25 man squad the percentage of turnover being used for players wages is 20%.

20% of turnover for player wages is not sufficent. Its not sustainable in this division and its probably not very good for team moral. Why can the club not find a more familiar 50% we have used in the championship?, I only guess that the 30% drop is due to having to pay back the debt in a 24 month timeframe. what else can it be?

 [/quote]

Fantasy maths probably. You''ve made so many assumptions you might as well claim Foulger has agreed to pay Holt''s wages in chicken to save some cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]Purple - I did the same as you and hauled out the club accounts and I think I can shed some further light. Page 13 lists the total STAFF COSTS. For last season these actually total £18,445,000. This total includes promotion bonuses of £3,817,000.

The total STAFF COST for last season therefore works out at 80% of turnover. I''m not sure what this proves - but there''s rather a difference between 47% and 80%![/quote]And there''s also a difference between players and staff. I think it proves we spend 33% of turnover on non-playing staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely it makes sense that our wages as a percentage of turnover in our first year in the Premiership was well below the 50% level. The board, while hopeful, was probably accepting the fact that we were odds on for relgation so wouldn''t want to stretch the wage budget. With another year of PL turnover to come surely we will now be creeping towards the %50 wage turnover level. Hence why players with already good contracts are getting new deals. While the debt payment will be a factor a doubt its the main reason for our wage structure. To be honest 17,000 a week for an unproven striker in the premiership was pretty good for Holt last year, now hes proved himself he wants more, fair enough and a 20-30K contract is what he probably deserves. I wouldn''t be surprised if that was what we were prepared to offer to Holt but only over 2 years (but one would have thought with a third year option). If grant thinks he can get better and by all accounts he can then of course personnally he wants to move. Talking about berbatovs value is a bit mute as he was given little chance to show his worth last year and Man U want rid as his wages are extortionate, hence why an almost non existent transfer fee. Grant costs us comparatively peanuts, we want him, so whoever is going to buy him needs to stump up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

So if you assume that Holt is amoung the top earners at the club last season on say £17kpw and the average was £12k for the 25 man squad the percentage of turnover being used for players wages is 20%.

20% of turnover for player wages is not sufficent. Its not sustainable in this division and its probably not very good for team moral. Why can the club not find a more familiar 50% we have used in the championship?, I only guess that the 30% drop is due to having to pay back the debt in a 24 month timeframe. what else can it be?

 

 

[/quote]

 

To be fair the turnover basically trebled overnight when we got promoted but the increase doesn''t really manifest itself properly until the next financial year and we receive the payments which as i understand it are mainly at the end of the season. That, plus the risk of relegation means any increases in salary obviously have to be done on a gradual basis and any major hikes were always more likley to happen once we had stayed up for a year. i suspect thats what is going on with the Ruddy, Surman and Martin contracts and what was also happening with Holt until this spat occured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Mister Chops"]So by accepting your club will live within its means, you are effectively saying finishing 17th in the PL every season is the key achievement and anything else is a bonus.  That works from a pragmatic financial point of view, but is it what the fans want to see?[/quote]I have three main ''wants'' as a supporter:1) The club to remain stable and not fall into the debt trap that many others have, nor go the way of Leeds/Pompey et al.2) To see good quality, entertaining football each week3) For that football to provide good results, including cups and or titles.I''d be happy to forego number 3 if 1 and 2 were being provided, as I''d rather watch good football and finish 17th, than finish 10th playing dross like Stoke do...[/quote]I think I agree with you on each point although I''m slightly more pragmatic about the style of football required in order to win games.  If Stoke are zero and the "classic" Wenger Arsenal side are ten then I''m probably happy to start at four.But I agree that fundamentally we should not risk the club''s short, medium or long term financial future by locking ourselves into contracts with playing or management staff that would prove unsustainable if we were relegated.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...