by Royal Monk » 09 Jan 2009 23:31
by rabidbee » 10 Jan 2009 04:00
by The whole year inn » 10 Jan 2009 07:00
by The 17 Bus » 10 Jan 2009 07:23
by readingbedding » 10 Jan 2009 10:05
The 17 Bus Perhaps a few on this site who think we should go after that type of player might now be able to see that wages can be too high, and more than just a problem.
It is also why if good offers come in for players we are in no position to reject them.
We don't know the level RFC are paying, but if folk think that those figures are high then for the ones around the 10k mark, i think many or ours would be near that as well. Makes those that say we should be paying £25k a week in the prem totally wrong IMHO, these players and many others are overpaid, underplayed, and over here.
It is another reason why many players will run down a long contract rather than move, not many at our level can afford Lita, we won't just let him go, as just one or two goals could take us up, and we need the cover, I reckon he will already be on a similar figure, so if teams like S'ton are cutting back, then there are few that will want to take him on a 3 year deal at his current rate, and pay us money s well.
by Skyline » 10 Jan 2009 10:59
The whole year inn The figures involved in that article are utter madness.
Plus the club pay the NI contributions
by The 17 Bus » 10 Jan 2009 11:06
by PieEater » 10 Jan 2009 11:14
by bobby1413 » 10 Jan 2009 11:38
by Dirk Gently » 10 Jan 2009 12:35
readingbedding If you can afford the wages, there is no problem, if you can't - well you're lining yourself up for some financial trouble.
by Tutti Frutti » 10 Jan 2009 12:38
rabidbee What stands out to me in that article is that in one season their income dropped from £23m to £15m, so that a £1.5m rise in their wage bill - from £10.5m to £12m - saw their wage bill go from 45% of their turnover to 81%.
by Deathy » 10 Jan 2009 12:52
Royal Monk I cant believe some of the figures stated in this article , should this be a warning to us about what we offer our players when we give them long contracts ?
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4030894.Saints__wage_bill_shocker/
by readingbedding » 10 Jan 2009 14:33
Dirk Gentlyreadingbedding If you can afford the wages, there is no problem, if you can't - well you're lining yourself up for some financial trouble.
That's slightly too simplistic, if you don't mind me saying so.
It's not just if you can afford the wages, it's if you can be sure of affording the wages for the duration of the contract you're giving the players. Too many things can happen to affect future income (relegation, failure to gain anticipated promotion,loss of sponsorship or anything that affects crowds) but too much of football financing has been done with an over-optimistic outlook on future achievements. When that doesn't happen - and, of course, it can't happen to all the teams who may be banking on it happening - then problems lie.
For years football has been spending future income - now that income is not materialising for many clubs the birds are coming home to roost.
by soggy biscuit » 10 Jan 2009 14:55
DeathyRoyal Monk I cant believe some of the figures stated in this article , should this be a warning to us about what we offer our players when we give them long contracts ?
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4030894.Saints__wage_bill_shocker/
Are you kidding? We are if anything, overly careful and strict with our budgets.
by Rev Algenon Stickleback H » 10 Jan 2009 15:53
readingbeddingDirk Gentlyreadingbedding If you can afford the wages, there is no problem, if you can't - well you're lining yourself up for some financial trouble.
That's slightly too simplistic, if you don't mind me saying so.
It's not just if you can afford the wages, it's if you can be sure of affording the wages for the duration of the contract you're giving the players. Too many things can happen to affect future income (relegation, failure to gain anticipated promotion,loss of sponsorship or anything that affects crowds) but too much of football financing has been done with an over-optimistic outlook on future achievements. When that doesn't happen - and, of course, it can't happen to all the teams who may be banking on it happening - then problems lie.
For years football has been spending future income - now that income is not materialising for many clubs the birds are coming home to roost.
I'm taking all those obvious points into account.
Of course teams buy players with a worst case, or a best case scenario in mind.
Teams do one or the other, and of course one team's outlook and future interpretation of that is different from others and always changes.
If a team can afford players, then as a fan you accept a 'gamble', but all chips in one basket, based only on one outcome is dangerous for some clubs.
Leeds is a fantastic example of this.
by phil in cornwall » 10 Jan 2009 16:09
Ideal What makes this so outrageous is not the actual wages being too high for Southampton to afford them, even though that clearly is the case, what is really outrageous is that they are paying more than they can afford for TOTALLY HORRENDOUS players, players who are barely good enough for league one. Luckily they will soon be in league one, so problem solved.
by Deathy » 10 Jan 2009 16:42
soggy biscuitDeathyRoyal Monk I cant believe some of the figures stated in this article , should this be a warning to us about what we offer our players when we give them long contracts ?
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4030894.Saints__wage_bill_shocker/
Are you kidding? We are if anything, overly careful and strict with our budgets.
Sounds like you're a man in the know. Who earns what at Reading?
by soggy biscuit » 10 Jan 2009 16:44
Deathy We're a very well run club, and frustrating as it is, we are extremely careful financially.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 109 guests