- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,418
- 83,951
So what do we do? Get our own country? It's either that or run things within budget.
Lets get Switzerland. Secret bank accounts and ski-ing in the winter.
So what do we do? Get our own country? It's either that or run things within budget.
Well it is that simple. Either do it or don't. Build on what we have or lose it.
Liverpool's turnover isn't that much more than ours but their wage bill is £120m per season higher than ours. We have the lowest wages to turnover in the league, so there's clearly plenty of room for manoeuvre.
I suspect DL will be putting the club on the market as soon as the stadium's built so I don't think he really cares that much about anything else.
Also when a footballer starts talking about what he is 'worth' he needs a fucking slap. It's not what you are worth, it's what you can get. Is Danny Rose 'worth' the price of 140 nurses a year? Let's put all 141 of these people in a room for an hour and let him explain that. Then let another 140 nurses walk into the room (it's quite a big room) and let him explain that he needs to double his money as he's actually worth 280 of them. Maybe even 300 or 400 of them. Get a fucking grip and say what you mean or shut the fuck up. It's greed.
It's what I'd do in their position. They've taken a run down club, renovated it and can sell it off as one of Europe's finest. They are business men after all and that's a great bit of business.This is my suspicion as well, said it before, I think Levy/ENIC want to get to the new stadium looking as attractive as possible on paper and then sell up.
We sure do.To be fair I don't think footballers are like politicians where they have to use perfect, inoffensive, sit on the fence terminology all the time.
We know what he means.
The capitalist economy sucks, it's not footballers' fault.
From what I've seen this is categorically not true.Well it is that simple. Either do it or don't. Build on what we have or lose it.
Liverpool's turnover isn't that much more than ours but their wage bill is £120m per season higher than ours. We have the lowest wages to turnover in the league, so there's clearly plenty of room for manoeuvre.
I suspect DL will be putting the club on the market as soon as the stadium's built so I don't think he really cares that much about anything else.
From what I've seen this is categorically not true.
This from an article by Windy today, where he quotes an recent anaslysis of wages and turnover:
'Daniel Levy is hamstrung by our lack of revenue — hence the need for a new stadium. Swiss Ramble writes wonderfully about football finances and wrote in January of this year that we had a ‘wages to turnover ratio’ of 51%, with Manchester United 45% and Manchester City 50%. This means that the percentage of our turnover that goes toward wages is higher than that of the Manchester clubs; their huge turnovers make their higher wage bills possible/sustainable. For comparison, Arsenal’s ratio is 56%, Liverpool’s 56%, and Chelsea are an anomaly on 68%. When you see Premier League wages presented in this way it illustrates the market that we are working within.
If ‘market rate’ for Rose’s wages are £160k per week, reportedly around £95k per week more than what he earns currently, that would involve spending an additional £5m a year on him alone. Were we to make similar increases to all of our best players (which we would have to do were we to bump up his salary), we’d be looking at over £50m. We cannot afford this; not least because we have £750m worth of stadium to pay for.'
Full opinion article from Windy on the Rose situation:
http://windycoys.com/2017/08/danny-rose-a-stark-reminder/
From what I've seen this is categorically not true.
This from an article by Windy today, where he quotes an recent anaslysis of wages and turnover:
'Daniel Levy is hamstrung by our lack of revenue — hence the need for a new stadium. Swiss Ramble writes wonderfully about football finances and wrote in January of this year that we had a ‘wages to turnover ratio’ of 51%, with Manchester United 45% and Manchester City 50%. This means that the percentage of our turnover that goes toward wages is higher than that of the Manchester clubs; their huge turnovers make their higher wage bills possible/sustainable. For comparison, Arsenal’s ratio is 56%, Liverpool’s 56%, and Chelsea are an anomaly on 68%. When you see Premier League wages presented in this way it illustrates the market that we are working within.
If ‘market rate’ for Rose’s wages are £160k per week, reportedly around £95k per week more than what he earns currently, that would involve spending an additional £5m a year on him alone. Were we to make similar increases to all of our best players (which we would have to do were we to bump up his salary), we’d be looking at over £50m. We cannot afford this; not least because we have £750m worth of stadium to pay for.'
Full opinion article from Windy on the Rose situation:
http://windycoys.com/2017/08/danny-rose-a-stark-reminder/
From what I've seen this is categorically not true.
This from an article by Windy today, where he quotes an recent anaslysis of wages and turnover:
'Daniel Levy is hamstrung by our lack of revenue — hence the need for a new stadium. Swiss Ramble writes wonderfully about football finances and wrote in January of this year that we had a ‘wages to turnover ratio’ of 51%, with Manchester United 45% and Manchester City 50%. This means that the percentage of our turnover that goes toward wages is higher than that of the Manchester clubs; their huge turnovers make their higher wage bills possible/sustainable. For comparison, Arsenal’s ratio is 56%, Liverpool’s 56%, and Chelsea are an anomaly on 68%. When you see Premier League wages presented in this way it illustrates the market that we are working within.
If ‘market rate’ for Rose’s wages are £160k per week, reportedly around £95k per week more than what he earns currently, that would involve spending an additional £5m a year on him alone. Were we to make similar increases to all of our best players (which we would have to do were we to bump up his salary), we’d be looking at over £50m. We cannot afford this; not least because we have £750m worth of stadium to pay for.'
Full opinion article from Windy on the Rose situation:
http://windycoys.com/2017/08/danny-rose-a-stark-reminder/
So what do we do? Get our own country? It's either that or run things within budget.
http://windycoys.com/2017/08/danny-rose-a-stark-reminder/This is really the crux of the situation I feel, we're gonna have to put up with players grumbling about their pay until we get more money.
"we’d be looking at over £50m. We cannot afford this; not least because we have £750m worth of stadium to pay for."
This is opinion, not fact, the financial links he has shared are not only old and outdated but do not even once mention that it would be unaffordable for us to increase our wages, the only thing it suggests is that we lack revenue in comparison to clubs above us, this is obvious but isn't crippling enough when taking into account other factors such as TV money and CL money to explain why we couldn't increase wages.
I could be wrong here however, I am not an expert on finances, if I am, feel free to show me otherwise.
Also, Levy has already said that the stadium would not be impacting transfers
"Daniel Levy stated that the stadium issues had no bearing on transfer dealings. But success on the field was obviously important, as always,"
Now by that logic, how can he expect "success on the field" if we are not willing to do what is needed to keep our best players?
I remember him being quizzed about wages and his response was:
"Daniel Levy said no player would be sold who they didn’t want to sell for non-footballing reasons," read the minutes. "He said that all players were under contracts, contracts they were happy to sign at the time.
"They would be expected to honour those contracts. They wouldn’t have had a reduction if things had gone badly."
Whilst I agree with him on the contracts I think it's fairly naive to think players wouldn't want to increase their wages when market value and performances dictate they are worth more in comparison to players who are half as good but get paid twice as much at other clubs, even clubs below us in the table.
This isn't something Levy can avoid, we can't have it both ways and I don't believe for one second we lack the ability to increase the wage structure, it's more like, Levy doesn't WANT to increase the wage structure, the reasoning behind which is open for interpretation but IN MY OPINION I don't see why increasing wages would put us into an unsustainable situation, I think that is a good excuse for not doing so from the top brass and little else.
But by all means, let's keep making excuses, once Poch leaves and the team gets dismantled what are we going to say? Victim of our own success in an overinflated market? Or reluctance to spend because we are run by a company who operates on one mantra only, profit over success?
Not read all of this but first sentence wrong lol
The £750m is total bill and more than £300m has already been paid - i.e. Cash movement
Transfer dealings are one thing. Wages budget is another. You can't establish a wages policy based on money you might get it. You can only base it on money you know will come in. You could spend CL income on player purchases, but you can only agree wages over the next 5 years for that player based on commercial deals and known gate receipts over that period.Also, Levy has already said that the stadium would not be impacting transfers
"Daniel Levy stated that the stadium issues had no bearing on transfer dealings. But success on the field was obviously important, as always,"
Our turnover has increased massively over the last 12 months. Aia deal trebled, nike deal double under armour. Enormous prize money from coming second, largest tv money in history, champions league money, £80m in from transfer fees, 90k capacity this season.
So presumably our wage bill could be increased commensurate with the increase in our turnover.
Also, given our turnover is going to rocket further once the stadium's finished, would it really destroy the club to increase certain players wages one year early, keep the team together and keep the club in the cl and potentially win actual trophies?
Why do we think that they don't increase the wage bill more than they do?
Does anyone actually believe that Levy is too thick to understand that the value of the company is directly related to how successful the team is on the pitch?