Wage Bill discussion (split)

[Martyn]

Martin and Cywka would have featured to a certain extent in the £10.5m figure,but then there are only part year savings on Hulse ,Commons and Moxey.However,for the current season,the wages of these 3 will have fully disappeared,as will Bueno.Interesting.

I've got to the stage where I'm finding it hard to remember who went when,so if I've got any of the above wrong,let me know!

I would it comes down to Cywka and Kinda being fairly costly (being loaned from the Prem and Real Valladolid), and only dropping Commons & Hulse wages for part of the season. But yeah, exactly when players arrived & left I can't remember either.

[ramblur]

One or two players have signed improved contracts, which may explain why the wage bill hasn't dropped as much as you'd think.

I missed off a half year of Ben Davies,who you could nearly match off with Moxey.Some might point out that there were loans other than Bueno,but on the other hand the £10.5m figure also includes loans (2 experienced Prem full backs immediately spring to mind).

Which players are you referring to re improved contracts?Can't be Brayford or Hendrick,as the £9m is given in March 11.If we're talking of someone like Pearson,I thought people like him accepted reduced terms (McEveley and Teale declining),though I may be wrong.Would be rather surprised if we offered more money when the cull was in full swing.

[ramblur]

I would it comes down to Cywka and Kinda being fairly costly (being loaned from the Prem and Real Valladolid), and only dropping Commons & Hulse wages for part of the season. But yeah, exactly when players arrived & left I can't remember either.

Hulse's wages were off the menu for the same amount of time as Bueno's were on.Can't imagine Cywka would have been costly-hardly an experienced Prem player.I think I've probably got the ins and outs about right (ignoring loans).Also,Varney was loaned to a Prem club,so one might expect they would have picked up at least the bulk of his wages.

[Martyn]

Also,Varney was loaned to a Prem club,so one might expect they would have picked up at least the bulk of his wages.

But it was Blackpool! 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />

[ramblur]

But it was Blackpool! 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />

.....who saved on the capital cost of buying a striker.It may only be Blackpool,but they would still have earned loads of money that year!

[LeedsCityRam]

Re the wage bill - I've a feeling its been south of £10m for quite a while. If it had got to that level before Savage & Varney left, it must have dropped since then as the incoming players, I imagine, will all be on four figure weekly wages in keeping with our stricter wage budgets

This would seem to be confirmed by the overall silence on the wage bill over the last few months. (as opposed to regular pronouncements from Glick & the club a year/2 years ago) It suggests to me that the club do not want to publicize exactly how much it is, as there would be uproar if the supporters were now being told a wage figure of £8.5/£9m was "over budget" (which we apparently are now)

What concerns me though are comments that Glick made a year or 2 ago about investors being good about "not expecting returns/dividends at this stage" but that would need to change at some point. Perhaps that point has now come & the wage bill has been squeezed further to enable some kind of return for our "investor group". Just speculation I hasten to add.

Footballwise - its clear that organic growth is order of the day. Glick will have seen teams like Swansea & Blackpool go up with small wage bills & small transfer investment & think that eventually, it could happen to us. And to be fair to him, the team clearly look better than last year but that "fluke promotion" is still some way off....

[SouthernExcile]

Scrub agents' payments,they're 3rd party and nothing to do with players' wages.I think employers' NIC was about 12.5% the last time I looked (admittedly ages ago).I suspect signing on fees would be apportioned over the length of contract,for the purpose of FFP calculation.In our accounts the fee is charged in full to the year in which it arises (ie not capitalised and spread over length of contract).

not strictly true - an agent "working" for the player would be a cost attached to the player in a P60, an agent working for the club on the other hand you are right its 3rd party. its benefit in kind type costs

[ramblur]

not strictly true - an agent "working" for the player would be a cost attached to the player in a P60, an agent working for the club on the other hand you are right its 3rd party. its benefit in kind type costs

Agents' fees are treated in the accounts as part of the capital cost of acquiring players,and are subject to amortisation over the length of contract-hardly surprising as they are quite obviously costs associated in securing players' registrations and nothing at all to do with the remuneration that players receive for their services to the club.If an amortisation charge is raised in the accounts and charged against profits,the actual charge for the expense (according to your theory,forming part of wages) cannot also be charged to profits ,as a double tax benefit would arise.

Are you trying to suggest that the club pays the player via the PAYE system and that the player then pays his agent?All clubs prepare a statement annually of payments they've made to agents -the figures are substantial and couldn't possibly just relate to agents employed by them.