Hammers 6 million bid for Holt!

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

Nuff Said - The figures I''ve quoted from the accounts ABSOLUTELY DO NOT prove that we pay 33% of our turnover to non-playing staff.

As I was trying to point out - a fair chunk of the difference between the 47% and the 80% was the promotion bonus that was paid to the PLAYERS!

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][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.

[/quote]

 

 

I think we all agree with that last sentence. Some people do, however, appear to see iot as an all or nothing issue which of course it is not and there must be a middle ground that can be taken. The beauty of our squad now is that we have a lot of talented young players who have increased in value significantly since we bought most of them. in most cases they can also be expected to maintain their value for a number of years. Giving them decent contracts ought therefore to not be too much of a risk (especially if thyey contain relegation clauses in relation to the wages) because in a doomsday scenario where we go down we will still be able to sell a couple of players or offload the higher earners. Holt, i accept is a slightly different kettle of fish as he is older and may have less re-sale value if we are in the champ in a years time. However, on that one he has other value to us and also its arguably worth it to stop him playing for one of our rivals in what is a crucial season.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][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 week

3) 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.


[/quote]

We don''t have to lock ourselves into unsustainable contracts. Simple relegation clauses are the answer. Thus we can pay Prem wages but reduce them drastically if relegated. If players don''t agree to these clauses then don''t sign them.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[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]

 

Indeed, Thirsty Lizard. And that 80 per cent figure for all wage costs is very much in line with the norm for the Premier League. The club has trumpeted the player wage costs figure, probably in part because it looks nice and low in (false) comparion to the headline figures given for other clubs. But it is a bit illusory. As you say, it certainly excluded promotion bonuses in the Championship season and for all one knows might in this last season exclude staying in the Premier League bonuses as well. What is unclear is whether the player wage cost figures includes other kinds of bonuses (ie non-promotion) or is an accurate guide to basic wages.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="Nuff Said"][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.

[/quote]

Hey, im all for being called out on my assumptions Nuff, please go ahead and explain. My fantasy maths guesses at a 12k average player wage, hense £15.6million out of a £75million turnover = 20%ish.

 

 

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][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.

[/quote]

Fair points Jim but if cash flow was the problem (we recieve the money mainly at the end of the season) then it makes you wonder how we spent our rather large (for us) transfer kitty at the start of the season and January. I do understand you point about the risk of relegation but a 50% increase in wage can come with a 50% relegation decrease clause. Last year im sure the players didnt mind being on championship wages as they were getting the opertunity to play in the premiership, to prove themselves amoung the best and in that respect I am glad we didnt pay proper premiership wages last season, however the club have to realise that sooner or later the players will want at a minimum very low premiership wages and that time I think is now and thats just looking after what we have let alone attracting new players. Put it this way, if Holt wanted 20k for 3 years but was offered 30k for 2years would he really of spat the dummy.

 

 

 

 

[Nuff Said 5,091]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"][quote user="Nuff Said"][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.

[/quote]

Hey, im all for being called out on my assumptions Nuff, please go ahead and explain. My fantasy maths guesses at a 12k average player wage, hense £15.6million out of a £75million turnover = 20%ish.

 

 [/quote]

I really have no idea, I just am a bit tired of threads where people get worked up into a frenzy, whether over the manner of Lambert''s leaving, what McNally said to Holt or wage levels, where very few of us, if any, know the facts. 

I do think the squad is bigger than 25 though.

[T 190]

The total wage cost in the accounts would normally include bonuses. Average of total wage costs to revenue was 64% in the premiership which is distorted by Arsenal and MauU. It is 77% excluding these two clubs.

[T 190]

Bonuses for promotion would have to be accrued in the accounts ie last year accounts would have to include the bonuses for promotion to the premiership in the wage costs.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="Nuff Said"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"][quote user="Nuff Said"][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.

[/quote]

Hey, im all for being called out on my assumptions Nuff, please go ahead and explain. My fantasy maths guesses at a 12k average player wage, hense £15.6million out of a £75million turnover = 20%ish.

 

 [/quote]

I really have no idea, I just am a bit tired of threads where people get worked up into a frenzy, whether over the manner of Lambert''s leaving, what McNally said to Holt or wage levels, where very few of us, if any, know the facts. 

I do think the squad is bigger than 25 though.

[/quote]

Yeah we do pay more than 25 players, but all this does is reduce the average wage not the total % of turnover spent on wages (ie the championship season in reality was not £9k average but (guess) £6k and same for 2011/12). Sorry to tire you with my frenzy, in my defence I dont think ive posted on a lambert thread since he left but the wage ceiling thing is one issue that does interest me although i remain very claim i assure you. I see are reluctance to manouver our existing turnover to allow mildly competitive wages as a mistake on par with not signing Aston in the summer and hense am surprised that so many other fans dont and thats fine, im just interested to know why.

 

 

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][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.

[/quote]

 

 

I think we all agree with that last sentence. Some people do, however, appear to see iot as an all or nothing issue which of course it is not and there must be a middle ground that can be taken. The beauty of our squad now is that we have a lot of talented young players who have increased in value significantly since we bought most of them. in most cases they can also be expected to maintain their value for a number of years. Giving them decent contracts ought therefore to not be too much of a risk (especially if thyey contain relegation clauses in relation to the wages) because in a doomsday scenario where we go down we will still be able to sell a couple of players or offload the higher earners. Holt, i accept is a slightly different kettle of fish as he is older and may have less re-sale value if we are in the champ in a years time. However, on that one he has other value to us and also its arguably worth it to stop him playing for one of our rivals in what is a crucial season.

[/quote]Agreed Jim.  However, isn''t the challenge how we bring in "better" players to strengthen our team, and how we can meet their salary expectations/demands to avoid them joining other clubs?  Offering (e.g.) Bennett, Pilkington etc better contracts is one thing as they''ve already proved they have either the potential or current quality.  Signing a new player who wants £30k per week is the difficult part.I do however agree that we may be in a position to flex the wage cap upwards given this is season two in the PL plus the parachute payments etc. should the not unthinkable happen.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Jim Smith"]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][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.

[/quote]

 

 

I think we all agree with that last sentence. Some people do, however, appear to see iot as an all or nothing issue which of course it is not and there must be a middle ground that can be taken. The beauty of our squad now is that we have a lot of talented young players who have increased in value significantly since we bought most of them. in most cases they can also be expected to maintain their value for a number of years. Giving them decent contracts ought therefore to not be too much of a risk (especially if thyey contain relegation clauses in relation to the wages) because in a doomsday scenario where we go down we will still be able to sell a couple of players or offload the higher earners. Holt, i accept is a slightly different kettle of fish as he is older and may have less re-sale value if we are in the champ in a years time. However, on that one he has other value to us and also its arguably worth it to stop him playing for one of our rivals in what is a crucial season.

[/quote]Agreed Jim.  However, isn''t the challenge how we bring in "better" players to strengthen our team, and how we can meet their salary expectations/demands to avoid them joining other clubs?  Offering (e.g.) Bennett, Pilkington etc better contracts is one thing as they''ve already proved they have either the potential or current quality.  Signing a new player who wants £30k per week is the difficult part.I do however agree that we may be in a position to flex the wage cap upwards given this is season two in the PL plus the parachute payments etc. should the not unthinkable happen.[/quote]

 

Agreed. Personally though i think provided we continue with our policy of signing relatively young players the risks are quite low. Taking Naughton as an example if we signed him this summer on a 3 year deal and paid him £35K a week I would not see that as a huge risk provided that his contract had clauses allowing for relegation. Yes its a risk but perhaps its one worth taking.

I want us to be run well and i want us to be one of the (if not the) best run clubs in the premierleague. I don''t want us to take risks to such an extent as it risks putting us into financial jeopardy. I just don''t want us to overly handicap ourselves in order to achieve that when staying in this division this season is particularly important given the new TV rights deal. The figures quoted above show that other clubs in this league spend a far higher percentage of turnover on wages. That places us at a disadvantage. We can overcome that disadvantage to a degree through being smart, recruiting good managers and players from the lower leagues and abroad. Thats what we did last season but its a huge ask to keep doing it each season.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]The figures quoted above show that other clubs in this league spend a far higher percentage of turnover on wages. That places us at a disadvantage.[/quote]No, what that shows Jim is the shockingly poor manner in which a large majority of teams are being run these days, and with the continuing changes such as FFP in Europe, I don''t think it will be too long before we see similar regulations being placed across all the major leagues in Europe domestically.It really is about time something was done about this nonsense in paying 80% of turnover in wages, and if we can buck the trend and still perform whilst doing this - then this should be a key focus going forwards.Just because other teams want to put themselves into massive debt doesn''t mean we should (and I know you agree on this), so in some ways their turnover vs wages is a moot point, as we should be concentrating on doing things the right way instead of their way...

[Nuff Said 5,091]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Yeah we do pay more than 25 players, but all this does is reduce the average wage not the total % of turnover spent on wages (ie the championship season in reality was not £9k average but (guess) £6k and same for 2011/12). Sorry to tire you with my frenzy, in my defence I dont think ive posted on a lambert thread since he left but the wage ceiling thing is one issue that does interest me although i remain very claim i assure you. I see are reluctance to manouver our existing turnover to allow mildly competitive wages as a mistake on par with not signing Aston in the summer and hense am surprised that so many other fans dont and thats fine, im just interested to know why.

 

 

[/quote]As I said, I don''t have the facts, so I''m guilty of speculation too, but I guess that since we don''t make a profit (?) our income equals our expenditure so there is no more money for wages. Personally, I''d rather we were financially prudent than borrowed again to finance higher wages.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Jim Smith"]The figures quoted above show that other clubs in this league spend a far higher percentage of turnover on wages. That places us at a disadvantage.[/quote]No, what that shows Jim is the shockingly poor manner in which a large majority of teams are being run these days, and with the continuing changes such as FFP in Europe, I don''t think it will be too long before we see similar regulations being placed across all the major leagues in Europe domestically.It really is about time something was done about this nonsense in paying 80% of turnover in wages, and if we can buck the trend and still perform whilst doing this - then this should be a key focus going forwards.Just because other teams want to put themselves into massive debt doesn''t mean we should (and I know you agree on this), so in some ways their turnover vs wages is a moot point, as we should be concentrating on doing things the right way instead of their way...[/quote]

 

But the point Indy is that if we can still do things the right way but give ourselves a better chance then we should. The turnover v wages think isn;t a moot point. Its shows one of the reasons why we are at a disadvantage. Moreover it shows we can probably afford to pay quite a bit more than we are at the moment without getting anywhere near 80% of turnover.

[technika 0]

6mill up front & they are welcome to him, if city accept it then i wouldnt be shocked to see villa come along and match it either

but ffs please not leon best as a replacement hes a useless w@nk3r

[T 190]

We have to pay lower wages as a percentage of turnover as we have external debt reapyments while other clubs are being subsidised by internal loans.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

Holt has just tweeted

"Hope it stays sunny in norwich for when we get back Monday."

Maybe he''s not on the brink of leaving?

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

[quote user="Shaker Maker"]Holt has just tweeted

"Hope it stays sunny in norwich for when we get back Monday."

Maybe he''s not on the brink of leaving?

[/quote]Is the "we" him and his wife or him and his agent mife ?

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[quote user="Nexus_Canary"][quote user="Shaker Maker"]Holt has just tweeted

"Hope it stays sunny in norwich for when we get back Monday."

Maybe he''s not on the brink of leaving?

[/quote]Is the "we" him and his wife or him and his agent mife ?[/quote]Him and his wife. He''s been oop North on holiday for a week or so.

[peter-plastic 0]

I wonder if Shrewsbury had a sell-on clause ( % of any profit) within the terms of the sale of GH to us. That would be a fairly sizeable chunk for them as well.

[ricardo 7,348]

[quote user="plengcharthai"]I wonder if Shrewsbury had a sell-on clause ( % of any profit) within the terms of the sale of GH to us. That would be a fairly sizeable chunk for them as well.[/quote]They don''t, so wonder no longer.[;)]

[peter-plastic 0]

Cheers, Ricardo. I didn''t need to wonder for long. Still hope he stays though.

[BW 0]

If we sell him there will be a replacement already pretty much signed. 6mil is a good price but Holt is our talisman and won''t be allowed to leave without someone suitable lined up. Gone are the days now Mcnally is about that we are run like we can get away with pocketing a few bob and relying on a load of crap.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="plengcharthai"]I wonder if Shrewsbury had a sell-on clause ( % of any profit) within the terms of the sale of GH to us. That would be a fairly sizeable chunk for them as well.[/quote]They don''t, so wonder no longer.[;)][/quote]But this would mean Wiz was wrong about something.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Holt is very much of his home area. A move to Villa would suit him; but a move to London?

 

Money is one thing but sitting on the bench more and re-settling a young family and living in London or Essex are another.

 

If we agreed to sell Holt to West Ham it could be a case of him being more careful what he wished for?

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]

Holt is very much of his home area. A move to Villa would suit him; but a move to London?

 

Money is one thing but sitting on the bench more and re-settling a young family and living in London or Essex are another.

 

If we agreed to sell Holt to West Ham it could be a case of him being more careful what he wished for?

[/quote]

Don''t think this is going to end yet, some rumour sites are sayinw we turned the bid of £6mil down and its £7mil or go away, but I think we will here what mr Hughton has to say to him on Monday, I expect an  announcement around Thursday one way or another, But his recent holiday makes me think he is not a money grabber, how many Premier league players do you know that go to Centre parks in Penrith for a family holiday. (two weeks log cabin £800) self catering. next week will be interesting

 

 

 

 

[crabbycanary 2]

I suspect the Center Parcs holiday is so he can keep in the country for any negotiations!!!!!

Also he has been to Cyprus, that we know of, and Mrs Holt has been away also, and they have got young children, sand there isn''t much for them to do in Dubai at this time of year ;)

[step 0]

CENTER PARCS is a great place to go with Holtys kids age''s.

Might seem to be cheap but you try doing activities,hiring bikes, eating drinking out or buying from the supermarket...not that cheap.

[First Wizard 0]

Yeah, lets sell him to a potenial relegation rival, that makes perfect sense does that. [:S]