Jump to content

The accounts 16/17


ramblur

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

When the total wage bill alone is £6m more than turnover, then you know it's not sustainable!

We need to trim around 8-10 seniors out of this squad, and supplement the remaining 22 with our U23's.

Next summer is the time when we're really in control of this - I believe there's around a dozen senior contracts expiring 2019, with Bent, Baird & Shackell the only seniors expiring 2018.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Carnero said:

When the total wage bill alone is £6m more than turnover, then you know it's not sustainable!

We need to trim around 8-10 seniors out of this squad, and supplement the remaining 14 with our U23's.

Ftfy.

my goodness we almost agree on something. 

i'd rather we played we played the tea lady than sign any more over 30s or Wasserman groupees,  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26 March 2018 at 22:02, Gritters said:

I have no idea.

The cost of the academy should be offset against the value of the players produced. Or at least against the transfer income from selling players from the academy like Hughes. I bet the academy cost aren't included in FFP though but if the running costs are £5m + then we need to be producing some quality players because it may be cheaper to buy in at that price.

Correct.

if you are going to have a factory farm, then you need to eat a lot of turkey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You save approx 5 million per year not renewing the 5 out of contract players from this year. 

Bent, Shackell, Baird, Hanson & Roos. 

(£100,000 per week combined ish)

This will still mean belt tightening as I’m sure Gary will want to bring a few players in. Unless we can shift other players who’s contracts run longer.

However, end of 2019 we have much more flexibility with or without additional sales, as these contracts run out, possible early sales marked ***

Out of contract in 2019 are:

Craig Bryson ***

Andreas Weimann

Jacob Butterfield ***

Bradley Johnson

Nick Blackman ***

Marcus Olsson

David Nugent

Curtis Davies

Tom Huddlestone

Alex Pearce

Joe Ledley

Cameron Jerome

Max Hunt

Chris Martin is 2020 but ***** expected. 

 

So, even with a little concentration we should get the wages back in line to a sustainable level. 

I think the gamble didn’t pay off and I’d be surprised if we went down the buy everyone and push the boat out route again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, England Ram said:

You save approx 5 million per year not renewing the 5 out of contract players from this year. 

Bent, Shackell, Baird, Hanson & Roos. 

(£100,000 per week combined ish)

This will still mean belt tightening as I’m sure Gary will want to bring a few players in. Unless we can shift other players who’s contracts run longer.

However, end of 2019 we have much more flexibility with or without additional sales, as these contracts run out, possible early sales marked ***

Out of contract in 2019 are:

Craig Bryson ***

Andreas Weimann

Jacob Butterfield ***

Bradley Johnson

Nick Blackman ***

Marcus Olsson

David Nugent

Curtis Davies

Tom Huddlestone

Alex Pearce

Joe Ledley

Cameron Jerome

Max Hunt

Chris Martin is 2020 but ***** expected. 

 

So, even with a little concentration we should get the wages back in line to a sustainable level. 

I think the gamble didn’t pay off and I’d be surprised if we went down the buy everyone and push the boat out route again. 

I'm happy to build slowly and solid with players coming through from the academy. I'm not a big fan of 30+ year old has beens or never will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're probably stuck with the johnsons, butterfields, and blackmans.

no-one will surely pay real money that you can spend in shops for this lot.

we might get a used Ford Fiesta in part exchange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gritters said:

I'm happy to build slowly and solid with players coming through from the academy. I'm not a big fan of 30+ year old has beens or never will be.

Give Nigel another go he knows how to sort this kind of mess out lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gritters said:

I'm happy to build slowly and solid with players coming through from the academy. I'm not a big fan of 30+ year old has beens or never will be.

Agreed. And I think we have shown that it is not sustainable. 

Mel has talked about a tierd system of 5 top earners, 5 middle earners and the rest normal or academy earners. I think we can see the sense in this to make it sustainable and having to prove your worth to be in a different bracket so we don’t get in to this position again. 

I do see more possible transfer targets being missed out on though as they demand more than we can or will offer. 

You’ll still get fans moaning that we aren’t spending the money, but they’d soon think twice if they were losing £7 million a year, even if they were multi millionaires. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes me chortle the bit stating that after the signing of Nugent etc intangible off field assets went up to £42.6 million, who is actually valuing that little lot? I'll have a safe wager that our intangible off field assets are nowhere near that level if we've valued Butterfield, Blackman, Johnson et al at the price we paid for them (which is the subject of a court case currently).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

How was it allowed to happen?

I suspect Mr Rush knows more about it than me but it's pretty clear that the return on investment on the field in the last 2-3 years has been poor for many reasons - manager changes, too high outgoing transfer fees & wages for average players, "surprise" contract extensions etc etc.

Of course there's going to be a loss when we're trying to compete with big spending teams (with or without parachute payments) but we're not going to be able to sell a Hendrick, Ince & Hughes every year - which is what I find worrying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Of course there's going to be a loss when we're trying to compete with big spending teams (with or without parachute payments) 

By your same logic doesn't it also follow that these teams will also have incurred a large financial loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...