Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 24,131 
|
Post by Tinpot on Aug 12, 2019 12:44:03 GMT 1
And therein lies the rub. We were always going to get relegated at some stage or other. It's not that many years since Stoke & WBA were deemed to be established PL clubs; we'd have dropped eventually. And then we'd have been stuck with PL wages on championship income. More than that, we'd have to pay a bit more to somebody to entice them to play for a club that was always going to be one of the favourites for the drop. The idea behind bringing in the likes of Bacuna, Diakhaby & Mbenza - i.e. bringing in players that we felt had the potential to become stars - was a pretty sound one. It's just a shame that they've been of very variable levels of success. Brighton didn't spend big on big stars. They just bought better than we did. How much of that is better scouting & how much is better luck I don't know. Brighton have spent big over the last 3 years. Net spend in their first 2 years in the PL was €142m (apologies for it being Euros, as these figures are from transfermarkt) versus our spending of €90m. They’ve spent 50% more and this year have spent another €67m. They are buying quality players from European leagues. Yes there scouting is good but they have backed themselves with money too. I stand corrected. I was looking at who they'd bought (nobody I'd heard of) & the fees involved (not ridiculous) & drew my conclusion from that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 15:28:09 GMT 1
I think they’re staying loyal previous summer signings who got them there. They may look to go up save the cash and come back stronger which is another good strategy for clubs without billionaire owners. We should’ve done that. Not bought Moonie, LDP who were both on big wages and both terrible- not better than someone we could’ve got from league one for a tenth of the money. Same for the other signings. The difference is Norwich have the advantage of Farke having time to build his squad for promotion, we went up too early in Wagners reign and money had to be spent. Yes fair comment Cod. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 15:40:25 GMT 1
The rate of increase since the new Tv deals has made it impossible to survive the prem without at least what Brighton have spent. You’ve gotta be able to spend £10M and him be shit and then spend another £10-15M.
Moonie had to be a big hit for us -10 goals at least in the league. Brighton have bought Locardia and Andone and neither has done much for them but they had Murray Gross March all Co to chip in with goals. That was the difference. Our players massively over performed in year one. We then need 2 or 3 £10M additional first team players to have a chance of surviving again.
At the end of the day the odds are stacked against you unless you’ve got that billionaire backing. You’ve gotta be able to spaff £10 M on a guy who can’t be arsed running & can’t score in a brothel.
|
|
|
|
Post by canterburyterrier on Aug 12, 2019 16:00:01 GMT 1
T The other question is where has all that premier league money gone especially which includes the widely reported £200 million for just winning the play offs. Add on to that two seasons of vast amounts of money which includes tv money, sponsorship money ,full house gate money and this seasons transfer money for Billing and Smith etc etc, plus part parachute payments . Surely the club didnt break the bank with club signings.over the last two seasons So you think town have had an income of over £400 million since the playoff final. We got nothing but promotion from the playoff final. I believe as is customary we gave our share of the gate receipt (nowhere near 200 million) to Reading. Getting promoted guaranteed an income of at least £200 million over the next three years. Approximately £100 million for being in the premier league in year one plus guaranteed parachute payments for the next two years if we were relegated giving a total of approximately £200 million - that is why it is said the play-off final win is worth at least £200 million. In actual fact we had two years in the premier league each with an income of just over £100 million pounds. Each year we spent approximately £50 million on players and had a wage bill of about £50 million. Income is balanced by expenditure. WE have three years of parachute payments to come - these are supposed to cover players salaries - we have had a reduction in salaries and sold or loaned some players so we probably will have a surplus at the end of the year. Every five minutes conspiracy theorists come up with the phrase "where as the money gone?" it is clear where it has gone. You can dispute all you like about the value of players compared to what we paid and how large their salaries should be, but most of our income has been spoken for - simple mathematics. What happens to the transfer money that we have received lately - that is another question. |
|
|
|
Post by canterburyterrier on Aug 12, 2019 16:04:02 GMT 1
The difference is Norwich have the advantage of Farke having time to build his squad for promotion, we went up too early in Wagners reign and money had to be spent. Yes fair comment Cod. In the Times last week Webber quoted this years salary bill at Norwich to be £65 million so whilst they have some money to spend its not as big as some would expect. IIf they get immediately relegated their money from this year and the parachute payment would pay there salary bill back in the Championship, so they could keep the squad together. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 16:21:52 GMT 1
In the Times last week Webber quoted this years salary bill at Norwich to be £65 million so whilst they have some money to spend its not as big as some would expect. IIf they get immediately relegated their money from this year and the parachute payment would pay there salary bill back in the Championship, so they could keep the squad together. Only if those players are willing to drop back down.... |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Aug 12, 2019 17:23:13 GMT 1
T The other question is where has all that premier league money gone especially which includes the widely reported £200 million for just winning the play offs. Add on to that two seasons of vast amounts of money which includes tv money, sponsorship money ,full house gate money and this seasons transfer money for Billing and Smith etc etc, plus part parachute payments . Surely the club didnt break the bank with club signings.over the last two seasons So you think town have had an income of over £400 million since the playoff final. We got nothing but promotion from the playoff final. I believe as is customary we gave our share of the gate receipt (nowhere near 200 million) to Reading. Getting promoted guaranteed an income of at least £200 million over the next three years. Approximately £100 million for being in the premier league in year one plus guaranteed parachute payments for the next two years if we were relegated giving a total of approximately £200 million - that is why it is said the play-off final win is worth at least £200 million. In actual fact we had two years in the premier league each with an income of just over £100 million pounds. Each year we spent approximately £50 million on players and had a wage bill of about £50 million. Income is balanced by expenditure. WE have three years of parachute payments to come - these are supposed to cover players salaries - we have had a reduction in salaries and sold or loaned some players so we probably will have a surplus at the end of the year. Every five minutes conspiracy theorists come up with the phrase "where as the money gone?" it is clear where it has gone. You can dispute all you like about the value of players compared to what we paid and how large their salaries should be, but most of our income has been spoken for - simple mathematics. What happens to the transfer money that we have received lately - that is another question. We expected to lose a few more big earners. The money from Billing might already be allocated to the wage bill, the fees we did not get might have been earmarked for signings or expensive loans? |
|
mallyb
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 926
|
Post by mallyb on Aug 12, 2019 17:29:41 GMT 1
In the Times last week Webber quoted this years salary bill at Norwich to be £65 million so whilst they have some money to spend its not as big as some would expect. IIf they get immediately relegated their money from this year and the parachute payment would pay there salary bill back in the Championship, so they could keep the squad together. Only if those players are willing to drop back down.... Worryingly other teams don't seem to have had as many unsettled stars after relegation as we have. Who would you credit for the unrest at Town? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 17:36:53 GMT 1
Only if those players are willing to drop back down.... Worryingly other teams don't seem to have had as many unsettled stars after relegation as we have. Who would you credit for the unrest at Town? |
|
mallyb
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 926
|
Post by mallyb on Aug 12, 2019 18:04:55 GMT 1
So you think town have had an income of over £400 million since the playoff final. We got nothing but promotion from the playoff final. I believe as is customary we gave our share of the gate receipt (nowhere near 200 million) to Reading. Getting promoted guaranteed an income of at least £200 million over the next three years. Approximately £100 million for being in the premier league in year one plus guaranteed parachute payments for the next two years if we were relegated giving a total of approximately £200 million - that is why it is said the play-off final win is worth at least £200 million. In actual fact we had two years in the premier league each with an income of just over £100 million pounds. Each year we spent approximately £50 million on players and had a wage bill of about £50 million. Income is balanced by expenditure. WE have three years of parachute payments to come - these are supposed to cover players salaries - we have had a reduction in salaries and sold or loaned some players so we probably will have a surplus at the end of the year. Every five minutes conspiracy theorists come up with the phrase "where as the money gone?" it is clear where it has gone. You can dispute all you like about the value of players compared to what we paid and how large their salaries should be, but most of our income has been spoken for - simple mathematics. What happens to the transfer money that we have received lately - that is another question. We expected to lose a few more big earners. The money from Billing might already be allocated to the wage bill, the fees we did not get might have been earmarked for signings or expensive loans? Where is the £252 million from 2 years in the Prem? We didnt spend £50M on players in PL2 or PL1. Nearer £75M combined and we have taken nearly £30M in transfer fees this summer so net spend on transfers £45M over the 2 years. Don't know wage bill exactly but we know that it wasn't £50M because we made £25M profit in the first year and that include promotion bonuses. Examiner think average 1st team wage was £1.2M in year 2 X 25 first team players just over £30M. No other team in my living memory has spent so little and sold or got rid of so many players in their first relegation season. These are the biggest payments the premiere league have ever made to relegated teams. There are only 2 explanations for me, 1 is PH has no money and is using the clubs finances to pay Dean (the money belongs to the club not Dean), or Dean has done a Deal with PH because he will give Dean his £50M back plus invest the £20M in canalside that Dean owns. Foreign owners would not have given Dean his money as easily. The club is worth what it is worth regardless of how much the owner has put in. £252M - £45M = £207M £207m - £80M (Salaries 2 years) =£127M Canalside £20M £107M Stadium Improvements £5M £102M Parachute payment £60M + £102M = £162M Even if these figures are not spot on (wages and transfer fees are all documented in various places, and even if it is £100M rather than £80M on wages) There is a lot of money spare somewhere. |
|
mallyb
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 926
|
Post by mallyb on Aug 12, 2019 18:08:50 GMT 1
Worryingly other teams don't seem to have had as many unsettled stars after relegation as we have. Who would you credit for the unrest at Town? Didn't realise we got less money than any team in premier league history. Amazing how all our money vanishes but Cardiff and Fulham, who get less PL booty than us have kept their squad together and invested to go again and wont breach FFP. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 18:31:56 GMT 1
Didn't realise we got less money than any team in premier league history. Amazing how all our money vanishes but Cardiff and Fulham, who get less PL booty than us have kept their squad together and invested to go again and wont breach FFP. Have they? Cardiff list 13 departing players and 11 in. Fulham had 10 YES 10 players on loan last season and have brought 5 of those players back on loan for this season. |
|
mallyb
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 926
|
Post by mallyb on Aug 12, 2019 19:46:15 GMT 1
Didn't realise we got less money than any team in premier league history. Amazing how all our money vanishes but Cardiff and Fulham, who get less PL booty than us have kept their squad together and invested to go again and wont breach FFP. Have they? Cardiff list 13 departing players and 11 in. Fulham had 10 YES 10 players on loan last season and have brought 5 of those players back on loan for this season. Cardiff spent £14m after bringing in £9m in sales. Fulham Brought in 5 Experienced Premier league loans that will have all had significant loan fees attached and sold £23M of players (less than us) having spent 3 times what we did last season. I think you are reading transfer market wrong because the 5 loans they have this season were not with them last season. They are listed as departures for this season as well as arrivals because their loan expires during this season and they will leave, in May 2020. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 20:05:56 GMT 1
Have they? Cardiff list 13 departing players and 11 in. Fulham had 10 YES 10 players on loan last season and have brought 5 of those players back on loan for this season. Cardiff spent £14m after bringing in £9m in sales. Fulham Brought in 5 Experienced Premier league loans that will have all had significant loan fees attached and sold £23M of players (less than us) having spent 3 times what we did last season. I think you are reading transfer market wrong because the 5 loans they have this season were not with them last season. They are listed as departures for this season as well as arrivals because their loan expires during this season and they will leave, in May 2020. Hands up, my mistake. Hardly kept their squads together though. |
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Aug 13, 2019 0:23:44 GMT 1
Bearing in mind we have only won 1 league game since 25th November last year (9 months) I would suggest that the owner(s), managers, backroom staff, coaches etc are more to blame than the actual players. Yes we were well short of quality in the PL but the players available were for better than this record!
|
|
|
|
Post by TerrierSince89 on Aug 13, 2019 0:40:12 GMT 1
We expected to lose a few more big earners. The money from Billing might already be allocated to the wage bill, the fees we did not get might have been earmarked for signings or expensive loans? Where is the £252 million from 2 years in the Prem? We didnt spend £50M on players in PL2 or PL1. Nearer £75M combined and we have taken nearly £30M in transfer fees this summer so net spend on transfers £45M over the 2 years. Don't know wage bill exactly but we know that it wasn't £50M because we made £25M profit in the first year and that include promotion bonuses. Examiner think average 1st team wage was £1.2M in year 2 X 25 first team players just over £30M. No other team in my living memory has spent so little and sold or got rid of so many players in their first relegation season. These are the biggest payments the premiere league have ever made to relegated teams. There are only 2 explanations for me, 1 is PH has no money and is using the clubs finances to pay Dean (the money belongs to the club not Dean), or Dean has done a Deal with PH because he will give Dean his £50M back plus invest the £20M in canalside that Dean owns. Foreign owners would not have given Dean his money as easily. The club is worth what it is worth regardless of how much the owner has put in. £252M - £45M = £207M £207m - £80M (Salaries 2 years) =£127M Canalside £20M £107M Stadium Improvements £5M £102M Parachute payment £60M + £102M = £162M Even if these figures are not spot on (wages and transfer fees are all documented in various places, and even if it is £100M rather than £80M on wages) There is a lot of money spare somewhere. The wage bill alone in the first season in the premier league was £62.6m as announced to the world in the financial report last season for the financial year before and it went up again last year as we will see next April to what extent it went up. This is the crux of the frustration. There is so much hearsay and rumour and misunderstanding of figures and how much we received from being in the premier league and when and how we received it and that mixed together with some embellishment and before you know it Dean Hoyle has turned into the Oysten family with Phil H the next culprit in this asset stripping master plan. Has the money we received all been spent perfectly of course it hasn’t but has it been accounted for then yes it has. Other than the income from sales this summer which maybe be being used as a war chest for the next window once Dave Webber has had time to bed in and line up targets in the way that the sale of Butterfield helped a year later create the funds that brought in Schindler etc then only time will tell with that. |
|
|
|
Post by villageidiot on Aug 13, 2019 13:40:52 GMT 1
Where is the £252 million from 2 years in the Prem? We didnt spend £50M on players in PL2 or PL1. Nearer £75M combined and we have taken nearly £30M in transfer fees this summer so net spend on transfers £45M over the 2 years. Don't know wage bill exactly but we know that it wasn't £50M because we made £25M profit in the first year and that include promotion bonuses. Examiner think average 1st team wage was £1.2M in year 2 X 25 first team players just over £30M. No other team in my living memory has spent so little and sold or got rid of so many players in their first relegation season. These are the biggest payments the premiere league have ever made to relegated teams. There are only 2 explanations for me, 1 is PH has no money and is using the clubs finances to pay Dean (the money belongs to the club not Dean), or Dean has done a Deal with PH because he will give Dean his £50M back plus invest the £20M in canalside that Dean owns. Foreign owners would not have given Dean his money as easily. The club is worth what it is worth regardless of how much the owner has put in. £252M - £45M = £207M £207m - £80M (Salaries 2 years) =£127M Canalside £20M £107M Stadium Improvements £5M £102M Parachute payment £60M + £102M = £162M Even if these figures are not spot on (wages and transfer fees are all documented in various places, and even if it is £100M rather than £80M on wages) There is a lot of money spare somewhere. as we will see next April to what extent it went up. This is the crux of the frustration. There is so much hearsay and rumour and misunderstanding of figures and how much we received from being in the premier league and when and how we received it and that mixed together with some embellishment and before you know it Dean Hoyle has turned into the Oysten family with Phil H the next culprit in this asset stripping master plan. Has the money we received all been spent perfectly of course it hasn’t but has it been accounted for then yes it has. Other than the income from sales this summer which maybe be being used as a war chest for the next window once Dave Webber has had time to bed in and line up targets in the way that the sale of Butterfield helped a year later create the funds that brought in Schindler etc then only time will tell with that. the wage figure for PL1 - as stated above included significant 'staying up bonuses'. Whilst the wage bill may well have gone up - the overall spend on wages and bonuses will have come down in PL2 and we were told the payers were on a 40% reduction on relegation so this years are massively reduced (in comparison). |
|
|
|
Post by TerrierSince89 on Aug 13, 2019 16:45:42 GMT 1
The wage bill alone in the first season in the premier league was £62.6m as announced to the world in the financial report last season for the financial year before and it went up again last year as we will see next April to what extent it went up. This is the crux of the frustration. There is so much hearsay and rumour and misunderstanding of figures and how much we received from being in the premier league and when and how we received it and that mixed together with some embellishment and before you know it Dean Hoyle has turned into the Oysten family with Phil H the next culprit in this asset stripping master plan. Has the money we received all been spent perfectly of course it hasn’t but has it been accounted for then yes it has. Other than the income from sales this summer which maybe be being used as a war chest for the next window once Dave Webber has had time to bed in and line up targets in the way that the sale of Butterfield helped a year later create the funds that brought in Schindler etc then only time will tell with that. the wage figure for PL1 - as stated above included significant 'staying up bonuses'. Whilst the wage bill may well have gone up - the overall spend on wages and bonuses will have come down in PL2 and we were told the payers were on a 40% reduction on relegation so this years are massively reduced (in comparison). I bonuses were added on to the season before as it stated our wage bill for our promotion season was £21.8m but before bonus would of bn 12.4m or similar figures to that. The £62.6m was our premier league wages. Suspect premier league yr 2 will be nearer the £65m purely guess work but higher than £62.6m anyway and yes the 40% reduction will reduce the wage bill dramatically but our revenue will drop dramatically also at the same time in comparison |
|
