Financial Fair Play
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Hudsoneagle  06 Jan 17 1.09pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
I apologise in advance if this has already been covered but... SP mentioned in his HOL interview that it's not simply a case of the club overspending to fix the current problem because of financial rules which I took to mean us having to adhere to the financial fair play rules...correct me if I am wrong. So I was wondering how this could be such a problem for us this January when it had seemed to me the club didn't overspend in the summer. We brought in the following... Benteke x2 30m We sold... Bolasie 25m So on that basis a rough estimate would suggest a 54m purchase price and a 43m sale price. So overall we spent around 11m??? Like I said rough estimates and perhaps agent fees and wages etc have made a big difference. But how much money do you think we have to spend this Jan? Worth a mention that we released Chamakh and Adebayor from the wage bill. I am not a SP hater by the way...I think very highly of him and think he has been wonderful for CPFC and still is wonderful for us. But it surprised me when he mentioned it. It got me wondering just how high our wage bill currently is because the overspend doesn't seem to have come from transfer fees.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| bexleydave Barnehurst 06 Jan 17 1.17pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hudsoneagle
I apologise in advance if this has already been covered but... SP mentioned in his HOL interview that it's not simply a case of the club overspending to fix the current problem because of financial rules which I took to mean us having to adhere to the financial fair play rules...correct me if I am wrong. So I was wondering how this could be such a problem for us this January when it had seemed to me the club didn't overspend in the summer. We brought in the following... Benteke x2 30m We sold... Bolasie 25m So on that basis a rough estimate would suggest a 54m purchase price and a 43m sale price. So overall we spent around 11m??? Like I said rough estimates and perhaps agent fees and wages etc have made a big difference. But how much money do you think we have to spend this Jan? Worth a mention that we released Chamakh and Adebayor from the wage bill. I am not a SP hater by the way...I think very highly of him and think he has been wonderful for CPFC and still is wonderful for us. But it surprised me when he mentioned it. It got me wondering just how high our wage bill currently is because the overspend doesn't seem to have come from transfer fees. It's the player wages that are the problem. There's a limit on the year on year increase allowed in the wages bill and we started from a fairly low threshold. Increasing non-TV money helps, but our opportunities to do this are limited by our infrastructure.
Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sherlock Holmesdale Milton Keynes 06 Jan 17 1.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It might have something to do with how the payment and receipt of the transfer fees are structured. For instance maybe the upfront fee for Bolasie is to be paid over say 5 years whereas maybe the fee for Townsend or Benteke is structured over say 3 years. If this was the case we would be paying out a lot more than we are receiving in year 1 for example. I am purely guessing though. Our wage bill must be a lot higher now than it was a year ago too
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hudsoneagle 06 Jan 17 1.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Thanks Dave I am still far more used to us being a 2nd tier club than a 1st tier club so the wages do catch me out. When I read the other day that the wages Sako was on would be a stumbling block for champ teams to sign him I was surprised. Figures quoted have ranged from 40k to 65k a week! For a player that has rarely made the bench, let alone the 1st team.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| bexleydave Barnehurst 06 Jan 17 1.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hudsoneagle
Thanks Dave I am still far more used to us being a 2nd tier club than a 1st tier club so the wages do catch me out. When I read the other day that the wages Sako was on would be a stumbling block for champ teams to sign him I was surprised. Figures quoted have ranged from 40k to 65k a week! For a player that has rarely made the bench, let alone the 1st team. It's a clever formula, designed to stop the super-rich buying success, but it seems to have a greater impact on the likes of ourselves. The Sako wages resulted from him joining on a free and being able to command a bigger payday; I do still think he could do a job for us though, given a run of games.
Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
NickinOX  Sailing country. 06 Jan 17 1.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by bexleydave
It's the player wages that are the problem. There's a limit on the year on year increase allowed in the wages bill and we started from a fairly low threshold. Increasing non-TV money helps, but our opportunities to do this are limited by our infrastructure. I can't find it, but I read a report that said clipubs are allowed a maximum of 4m increase per year, plus any non TV revenue they generate. Assuming that is about right (obviously I don't know for certain), that would mean our wage bill would have been allowed to increase by 16m since our arrival in the PL, plus any spare cash the club has which did not come from TV revenue. Given the wage costs in the PL, that isn't much of an increase. I think we will struggle with this until we can expand the capacity of Selhurst, or move.
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NickinOX Sailing country. 06 Jan 17 1.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by bexleydave
It's a clever formula, designed to stop the super-rich buying success, but it seems to have a greater impact on the likes of ourselves. The Sako wages resulted from him joining on a free and being able to command a bigger payday; I do still think he could do a job for us though, given a run of games. I agree, although it does force clubs to think about off the pitch investments if they want to become sustainable which is not a bad thing.
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| bexleydave Barnehurst 06 Jan 17 1.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NickinOX
I can't find it, but I read a report that said clipubs are allowed a maximum of 4m increase per year, plus any non TV revenue they generate. Assuming that is about right (obviously I don't know for certain), that would mean our wage bill would have been allowed to increase by 16m since our arrival in the PL, plus any spare cash the club has which did not come from TV revenue. Given the wage costs in the PL, that isn't much of an increase. I think we will struggle with this until we can expand the capacity of Selhurst, or move. I've a recollection of that being about right. It doesn't give us a lot to play with.
Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle Online 06 Jan 17 2.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NickinOX
I can't find it, but I read a report that said clipubs are allowed a maximum of 4m increase per year, plus any non TV revenue they generate. Assuming that is about right (obviously I don't know for certain), that would mean our wage bill would have been allowed to increase by 16m since our arrival in the PL, plus any spare cash the club has which did not come from TV revenue. We are allowed to add player trading profits to that figure which should be quite significant as the costs relating to Bolasie, Gayle and Jedinak will have been written down to almost nothing by the time they were sold
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 06 Jan 17 2.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NickinOX
I can't find it, but I read a report that said clipubs are allowed a maximum of 4m increase per year, plus any non TV revenue they generate. Assuming that is about right (obviously I don't know for certain), that would mean our wage bill would have been allowed to increase by 16m since our arrival in the PL, plus any spare cash the club has which did not come from TV revenue. Given the wage costs in the PL, that isn't much of an increase. I think we will struggle with this until we can expand the capacity of Selhurst, or move. No it was £4mil, then £8mil, then £12mil. I list track at that point. We've lost the competitiveness because we saved money in year 1 before this whereas Bournemouth etc it doesn't apply to in year 1 went high on spending before the year on year increases allowed. I
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NickinOX Sailing country. 06 Jan 17 3.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
We are allowed to add player trading profits to that figure which should be quite significant as the costs relating to Bolasie, Gayle and Jedinak will have been written down to almost nothing by the time they were sold Exactly, that would be non-tv income.
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| bexleydave Barnehurst 06 Jan 17 3.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
No it was £4mil, then £8mil, then £12mil. I list track at that point. We've lost the competitiveness because we saved money in year 1 before this whereas Bournemouth etc it doesn't apply to in year 1 went high on spending before the year on year increases allowed. I
Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.