the wages debate....

[Syteanric 1]

Many posts on here we see a "marquee" signing rebuffed due to wages..... However is this just a throw away comment or little Norwich mentality.

I have an example below, and please forgive my fag packet maths....

Suppose say a top striker was available on a free, on a 40k a week deal, this equates to just over 6 million pounds over 3 years... 2 million a year.

Suppose said player signs and scores 20 goals and keeps us up. His 2 million a year salary is already justified.

Take the otherside of the arguement. The striker above is under contract, a 20 goal striker for 15 million pounds, plus wages on top equates to a huge risk... One we couldn''t afford...

But could we compete for a free transfer? A star player on a huge wage? Parachute payments pay that wage worst case scenario. Best case we survive.... What do we have to lose?

[Mahogany 0]

The problems is if we sign one player on big wages suddenly all the other players will be expecting more money, especially if they are playing better than the 40k man.

We could afford a couple of players on 40-50k a week, but we couldn''t afford a team full of players at 30k+

[Syteanric 1]

Maybe, mahogany. But does lappin earn the same as holt? There are wage differences already at the club.

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"] What do we have to lose? [/quote]

 

 

Squad cohesion. 

 

 

A squad whose average wages may be £15,000-20,000 a week and one "marquee" player on £40,000 - £50,000 a week?     If Holt or Morison or Jackson score more than your "marquee" striker, are they not going to think errr....why is he getting 40k and I''m only getting 20k?    Much better imo to keep the squad on a level that is fair to all of them.    Also a financial liability - its easy to dismiss spending millions as if it''s nothing - we''re Norwich City not Man City (thank goodness).

 

 

 

[mre2 1]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]Many posts on here we see a "marquee" signing rebuffed due to wages..... However is this just a throw away comment or little Norwich mentality.

I have an example below, and please forgive my fag packet maths....

Suppose say a top striker was available on a free, on a 40k a week deal, this equates to just over 6 million pounds over 3 years... 2 million a year.

Suppose said player signs and scores 20 goals and keeps us up. His 2 million a year salary is already justified.

Take the otherside of the arguement. The striker above is under contract, a 20 goal striker for 15 million pounds, plus wages on top equates to a huge risk... One we couldn''t afford...

But could we compete for a free transfer? A star player on a huge wage? Parachute payments pay that wage worst case scenario. Best case we survive.... What do we have to lose?[/quote]You would lose nothing, but a guaranteed 20 goal a season striker is never going to be available on a free transfer nor would they be on only 40K a week. If they were available on a free they would of have had injury problems and/or probably be past it e.g. Michael Owen.  Any marquee signing on a free transfer would likely to be a high cost gamble.

[fried_chicken 0]

[quote user="Mahogany"]The problems is if we sign one player on big wages suddenly all the other players will be expecting more money, especially if they are playing better than the 40k man. We could afford a couple of players on 40-50k a week, but we couldn''t afford a team full of players at 30k+[/quote]

I''ve got a suspicion that this was the problem with Holt earlier this summer. It could also be why Surman, Ruddy and Martin were offered new contracts. I wouldn''t be surprised if Howson came in on bigger wages and upset the rest of the team.

[Jack Barak 46]

Don''t forget the singing on fee which is substantially larger with free transfers so add in another £2m for a 20 a season striker, then include the agent''s fees of £500k-£1m, then include a decent bonus structure which any reputable name would want and suddenly it looks a lot. I think the problem is that very average players are paid massive amounts of money by some clubs (West Ham, QPR, Sunderland and Villa) spring to mind and this has just screwed the whole market. When some clubs are paying left backs £90k pw - Lucas Neill''s supposed wage when he joined West Ham in 2007 - it has to be recognised that established names do not settle for 40-50k.

[ca 1]

[quote user="fried_chicken"]

I''ve got a suspicion that this was the problem with Holt earlier this summer. It could also be why Surman, Ruddy and Martin were offered new contracts. I wouldn''t be surprised if Howson came in on bigger wages and upset the rest of the team.

[/quote]

 

But how would they know what wages Howson is on, can''t imagine they tell each other what they earn ???

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]Maybe, mahogany. But does lappin earn the same as holt? There are wage differences already at the club.[/quote]

The big difference is that Holt is a key player who scored 15 goals last season. Lappin for all his positive attributes is a bit part player and thus paid accordingly. In principle if this "star player" comes in and out performs Holt or the other strikers he can happily turn around to others and say thats why I am on 40k a week. However if it backfires and he turns out to be no better than the others you could have a serious problem.

[Mahogany 0]

I''d imagine their agents will know pretty much what all the players are on

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]Many posts on here we see a "marquee" signing rebuffed due to wages..... However is this just a throw away comment or little Norwich mentality.

I have an example below, and please forgive my fag packet maths....

Suppose say a top striker was available on a free, on a 40k a week deal, this equates to just over 6 million pounds over 3 years... 2 million a year.

Suppose said player signs and scores 20 goals and keeps us up. His 2 million a year salary is already justified.

Take the otherside of the arguement. The striker above is under contract, a 20 goal striker for 15 million pounds, plus wages on top equates to a huge risk... One we couldn''t afford...

But could we compete for a free transfer? A star player on a huge wage? Parachute payments pay that wage worst case scenario. Best case we survive.... What do we have to lose?[/quote]So we sign one player on £40k a week.  Our other high performing players then want £40k a week or more in their new deals.  We are then running at a huge wage overhead, or we refuse to meet their demands and they hand in transfer requests.  Other players who we are looking to sign now think they can get £40k a week and up their wage demands.Slippery slope time.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,565]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"] What do we have to lose? [/quote]

 

 

Squad cohesion. 

 

A squad whose average wages may be £15,000-20,000 a week and one "marquee" player on £40,000 - £50,000 a week?     If Holt or Morison or Jackson score more than your "marquee" striker, are they not going to think errr....why is he getting 40k and I''m only getting 20k?    Much better imo to keep the squad on a level that is fair to all of them.    Also a financial liability - its easy to dismiss spending millions as if it''s nothing - we''re Norwich City not Man City (thank goodness).

[/quote]

If Norwich have players who are so petty that they can''t bare to see someone else in the squad earning more than them then they should leave.

I''m sure everyone here works with someone who earns more than them and doesn''t have a weeping fit or throw their toys out of the pram about it. If Norwich brought in a player who was of an obvious quality that they deserve to be on £40k a week the fellow players should be pleased to have them on board and playing for the club - after all the longer Norwich are in the Premier League the better it is for all of them.

I''m all for clubs staying within their mean and keeping the ratio of wages to turnover at an acceptable level - but the talk of players becoming upset about other players earning more than them is largely over blown by the media to try and create false tensions. Players are happy to have ''big name'' players in their team - even if they earn more than them - as they know any improvement to the squad is good for them in extension.

If getting a ''marquee'' signing inspires Jackson to score more goals to chase £40k a week then surely that isn''t a bad thing either?

The most important thing is to make sure players are paid their worth - if Jackson starts playing like a 20 goal a season player, then we will have to pay him 20 goal a season wages, or sell him, for a massive profit.

''Squad cohesion'' is an excuse clubs who can''t afford large wages use.

[nutty nigel 7,554]

There just isn''t going to be a top Premier League striker available on a free. The only way we will have one is if we can polish up a gem from below us or get a Chris Sutton or Craig Bellamy through the ranks.

 

Join up with Rays Funds for the new season and help our catagory one academy prepare the next Bellars!

 

[PurpleCanary 5,571]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

If Norwich have players who are so petty that they can''t bare to see someone else in the squad earning more than them then they should leave.

I''m sure everyone here works with someone who earns more than them and doesn''t have a weeping fit or throw their toys out of the pram about it. If Norwich brought in a player who was of an obvious quality that they deserve to be on £40k a week the fellow players should be pleased to have them on board and playing for the club - after all the longer Norwich are in the Premier League the better it is for all of them.

I''m all for clubs staying within their mean and keeping the ratio of wages to turnover at an acceptable level - but the talk of players becoming upset about other players earning more than them is largely over blown by the media to try and create false tensions. Players are happy to have ''big name'' players in their team - even if they earn more than them - as they know any improvement to the squad is good for them in extension.

 

[/quote]

 

Of course there are differentials, but what is being suggested here is someone being paid twice as much as the next highest earner. I think you underestimate the significance of that gap, and over-estimate the altruism of footballers.

[jed exodous 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

There just isn''t going to be a top Premier League striker available on a free. The only way we will have one is if we can polish up a gem from below us or get a Chris Sutton or Craig Bellamy through the ranks.

 

Join up with Rays Funds for the new season and help our catagory one academy prepare the next Bellars!

 

[/quote]

I was just thinking, who is this top striker available on 40-50k?  There isn''t any.  No need for a thread is there?

[lake district canary 0]

Wages or not, new striker or not - it doesn''t matter.    Look at how many goalscorers we have throughout the team.    From Holt all the way back to Martin and Turner - we have goals in abundance.    Strikers that can score. Midfielders that can score. Defenders that can score. 

 

 

We don''t need to splash the cash.    We have enough to be going on with! [:)]

 

 

 

[sjs7 0]

I would say our best bet is to stick with the tried and tested method of the past few years and look towards up and coming players with ability and something to prove from the Championship and League One, our money will go further with more realistic wages to pay out. I think we are still a season or two away from paying bigger money on proven Premier players to join our squad (that also depends on still being in the Prem).

I am happy with our signings thus far, still believe we will sign another centre half and forward before August is out, Hughton seems to have sussed out whats what with our current players.... who''s going, staying and what his ideal 25 man Prem squad will be,,, plus im sure we will still have a few quid to spend in January or use the Loan options if needs must.

All in all moving in the right direction. OTBC :)

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

Suppose say a top striker was available on a free, on a 40k a week deal[/quote]Why would a top striker be available for free, on a £40k a week deal?  Unless he had just got out of prison and was looking to get back into the game, that would never happen.

[AndyCanary 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"] What do we have to lose? [/quote]

 

 

Squad cohesion. 

 

 

A squad whose average wages may be £15,000-20,000 a week and one "marquee" player on £40,000 - £50,000 a week?     If Holt or Morison or Jackson score more than your "marquee" striker, are they not going to think errr....why is he getting 40k and I''m only getting 20k?    Much better imo to keep the squad on a level that is fair to all of them.    Also a financial liability - its easy to dismiss spending millions as if it''s nothing - we''re Norwich City not Man City (thank goodness).

^that.

 

 

 

[/quote]

[paul moy 235]

All players in the squad should be on similar wages to maintain team spirit. Big differentials in rewards will cause disharmony and work against team-ethic. I''m happy to see our club taking the lead against unrealistic wage demands as high wages and massive transfer fees do not guarantee success but will inevitably lead to bankruptcy.  

[Cambridgeyellow 0]

It is often forgotten that our players wages are also boosted based on performance. By staying up this year the squad and the coaching staff will get huge bonuses ( unless this method is now changed ). Super stars dont want the risks of this type of pay, where as our group of players have the chance to earn the big wages but based on performance of the team. It is highly motivating I suspect.