Was this season one too far?

[Indy 3,283]

I have a bad feeling that even with the Sky relegation money we might follow the othe teams relegated into big debt!

 

I believe Purple said we have been paying over 52 million in wages and I believe that was last season and with the big signings this year surely we cannot afford this relegation, surely we will be back in debt and offloading players on the cheap to clear potential debts building up?

 

I hope that the players are big enough to want to stay and have a massive drop in wages due to relegation clauses, they owe it to the fans and the club. If not I hate to think the financial situation we could find ourselves in come two years time!

[Bill 1,788]

The club have budgeted for relegation, those clauses are in place.What has been noticable is that NO player has left for a bigger club, so maybe those wanted will stay.What should also be remembered is that most of those clubs were heavily in debt before relegationWhat should be of concern is why the board have allowed us to get into this position

[Holtcantshoot 0]

[quote user="City1st"]The club have budgeted for relegation, those clauses are in place.What has been noticable is that NO player has left for a bigger club, so maybe those wanted will stay.What should also be remembered is that most of those clubs were heavily in debt before relegationWhat should be of concern is why the board have allowed us to get into this position

[/quote]In terms of the board having "allowed us to get into this position" looking at the table we''re the only side in the bottom 7 to have not replaced our manager this season. There isn''t a definite guarantee from replacing the manager with someone internally in the case of Gary Monk at Swansea, from the lower leagues as with Gus Poyet at Sunderland or from overseas as with Magath (or whoever) at Fulham will create a positive effect on performances. West Ham have stuck with Allardyce and he has turned it around for them and moved them to safety. Sticking with Hughton is a gamble that didn''t pay-off but not a definite wrong decision without the benefit of hindsight.I would say in the board''s defence they are quite sentimental, loyal and look to avoid making ruthless business decisions unless absolutely required and it is likely to be very different when your looking the man you''re sacking in the eyes and telling him he''s gone than it is writing it on a keyboard from a distance.

[SeattleCanary 0]

[quote user="Holtcantshoot"]I would say in the board''s defence they are quite sentimental, loyal and look to avoid making ruthless business decisions unless absolutely required.[/quote]

Bryan Gunn? 1 league game, and 1 cup game in to the season. As a club legend I wouldn''t say they were too sentimental there. Having been beaten by all the teams bar Palace and Sunderland in the bottom half of the table there is as much reason to have gotten rid of CH, but they have chosen not to. I have no idea why.

[Holtcantshoot 0]

[quote user="SeattleCanary"][quote user="Holtcantshoot"]I would say in the board''s defence they are quite sentimental, loyal and look to avoid making ruthless business decisions unless absolutely required.[/quote]

Bryan Gunn? 1 league game, and 1 cup game in to the season. As a club legend I wouldn''t say they were too sentimental there. Having been beaten by all the teams bar Palace and Sunderland in the bottom half of the table there is as much reason to have gotten rid of CH, but they have chosen not to. I have no idea why.

[/quote]True, but I more looked at the sentimentality in the fact Gunn had no coaching badges, no previous managers experience, had got us relegated to the lowest league we had been in for 40 years and we then gave him a 3 year contract rather than letting him go before the League One season had even started. All personal perspective really. But on the Hughton front I agree entirely. I would have sacked him in January 2013 after a poor run of results and have left pretty much every game bar Everton and WBA last year and Spurs game this season thinking he couldn''t motivate the players and needed to be kicked out. I''m amazed he''s still there as well.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Indy"]

I have a bad feeling that even with the Sky relegation money we might follow the othe teams relegated into big debt!

 

I believe Purple said we have been paying over 52 million in wages and I believe that was last season and with the big signings this year surely we cannot afford this relegation, surely we will be back in debt and offloading players on the cheap to clear potential debts building up?

 

I hope that the players are big enough to want to stay and have a massive drop in wages due to relegation clauses, they owe it to the fans and the club. If not I hate to think the financial situation we could find ourselves in come two years time!

[/quote]Last seasons we had an overall wage bill of £51m on a turnover of £75m. As a percentage - 68 per cent - that is not abnormally high for the Premier League. This season turnover will be much nearer £100m as a result of the new TV deal. I wouldn''t care to guess what has happened to wages this season, although a basic knowledge of human nature, as it applies to footballers and their agents, would suggest they have risen roughly commensurately.