Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
davieG

Seems we're restricted on wage increases.

Recommended Posts

Leicester City owners will try to offer better contracts, if regulations allow it

By RobTanner  |  Posted: May 26, 2016

14390834-large.jpg
 

Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha says he will look at players' contracts

 
 Comments (0)

Leicester City vice-chairman Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha has revealed he would like to offer improved contracts to reward the club's Premier League title winners.

However, Premier League regulations that restrict dramatic rises in club's wage bills must be factored in, he said.

City are looking at how they can offer improved contracts to many of Claudio Ranieri's title-winning squad, especially those who could be enticed away by bigger clubs offering huge financial packages.

N'Golo Kante, who is the subject of strong interest from Paris Saint Germain, one of the richest clubs in Europe; Riyad Mahrez, Danny Drinkwater, Robert Huth, Wes Morgan and Kasper Schmeichel are believed to be players who could get new deals.

 

But despite winning the Premier League title, City can't start to massively inflate their wage bill, which is believed to be around £48 million for 2015-16, in one season, especially as they are also looking to bring in several new players this season to bolster the squad for their title defence and Champions League campaign, which would also swell the wage bill.

Getty ImagesKanteFranceTraining.jpg

 
Leicester City face a fight to keep N'Golo Kante

 

Short Term Cost Controls, which were agreed in March, state that clubs cannot increase their player wage bills by more than £7m compared to the previous year unless they can demonstrate that any excess is due to individual club revenue sources. From 2016-17 onwards STCC rules will only apply to clubs with player wage bills in excess of £67m in 2016-17, £74m in 2017-18 and £81m in 2018-19.

Alternatively, and more likely for City, each club must demonstrate that their aggregate player wage bill has not increased by more than the following levels, compared to their 2012/13 player wages: 2016-17: £19m; 2017-18: £26m; 2018-19: £33m. Those numbers are made-up from the £12m of central revenues clubs could spend under the STCC from 2013-14 to 2015-16, with £7m added for each of the next three seasons.

Again, there is more leeway if the club can demonstrate that it has been funded by increases in individual club revenues, which is certainly the case for City.

MahrezSunderland.jpg

 
Riyad Mahrez

 

Despite the restrictions, Aiyawatt said City would look to secure their key players on better contracts and fight to keep the title-winning squad together.

"The players deserve the contract, but the contracts they have, I think they are already happy," he said. "If I can I will.

"The Premier League have a lot of regulations and rules how to spend the money. The players understand they get paid well really. We cannot compare with [Manchester] City or [Manchester]United, or Chelsea, but if they move to another club maybe they not play well. You have seen many players fail before.

"That is a challenge for me as an owner. Claudio also has to explain everything for the players. Money is one thing. We will talk about contracts for the players for the whole summer. After the Euros we will talk about all these things.

"I understand the fans may worry. I can't say 'he will stay' because at the end of the day it depends on the players and the clubs who want them, but we have no policy to sell the players and we don't have a problem with money.

"Next year we are going to play in the Champions League. They can see how good the fans are here and they can see how many players moved and failed.

 

"All the players understand but it depends on them and us."

There have been reports of releases clauses in City players' contracts, but Aiyawatt said there weren't many such clauses.

"I am not sure of too many players in my head," he said.

"It will depend on each player's contract so it depends, but there aren't many players who have got that.

"But I don't think if you're owner you are not going to do exit clause anyway. Some players deserve to get better money, they try so hard. I would do it if the number is right."

The rules may be designed to stop clubs getting into financial trouble as they bid to close the gap on the giants of the Premier League, and Aiyawatt admits the big clubs still have the advantage.

"The bigger clubs always have the advantage but in life it is always like that," he added.

"When you are up against a bigger company it is always a challenge."

Premier League history has demonstrated how difficult it has been for club's like City to keep hold of all their prize assets after making a big impact in the Premier League, but Southampton have been able to sustain success despite having to sell key players at various stages.

Aiyawatt said the family feel at City may help them persuade players that they should remain with the club.

"We have to make sure the staff are happy and want to stay," he said.

"People, when they move, know how important the club cares, the staff care, the players care, the manager cares.

"We are very close as a family and everyone understands the same. We are all going in the same direction.

"We have to wait until the summer and evaluate everyone. I am super fair, and happy to improve (the contracts) if they deserve something."

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leicester-City-owners-try-offer-better-contracts/story-29323079-detail/story.html#ixzz49kf1WWYz 

Follow us: @@leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what to make of that, if we can't increase the players wages to a level that befits champions, then we are open to clubs putting silly money on the table in terms of wages. Let's hope they want to stay for CL football.

 

And the quote on release clauses doesn't exactly blow away the theory that some may have them and it's most likely to be the players being talked about, I wouldn't imagine, Wes or Fuchs have them for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, there is more leeway if the club can demonstrate that it has been funded by increases in individual club revenues, which is certainly the case for City.

That's the important part. We can easily demonstrate we have the funds & long term structure financially, to afford increase in wages. So we should be fine to give new contracts to Kante, Mahrez, etc as our profits speak for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why it's important to increase the stadium size because that is what basically dictates how much we can pay players. Man city did it, west ham have done it and now spurs. It's nothing to do with how many we can get in be rather how many seats we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree the club is being ran properly lets be honest 90% of the first team will definitely be here next season, there is nothing stopping us building on last years success and stabilising our selves as a top 6 club for years to come on the current wage structure. We will improve the squad and increase numbers its such an exciting time for this club and it will be nice to actually buy players that actually want to become apart of our legacy rather than just here for the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why it's important to increase the stadium size because that is what basically dictates how much we can pay players. Man city did it, west ham have done it and now spurs. It's nothing to do with how many we can get in be rather how many seats we have.

 

I think it plays a part, but it's not a lot. Ticket sales don't make up a large percentage of a PL club's income. Certainly compared to TV money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a squads wages can only go up a certain incremental amount based on the previous year's figures, then we're at a disadvantage compared to the wealthier clubs with massive squad wages who came below us last year. Especially so because we won on a relative shoestring budget. On top of that aren't we tied in to a ridiculously small kit sponsorship deal with Puma? That can't help with the wage levels we would like to offer. We really are going to have to rely on some good will from the players wanting to stay for more than financial reasons. Their agents might well be telling them it's all about the money (since they get a percentage) Let's see what unfolds. What a wonderful problem to have though after our achievement last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a squads wages can only go up a certain incremental amount based on the previous year's figures, then we're at a disadvantage compared to the wealthier clubs with massive squad wages who came below us last year. Especially so because we won on a relative shoestring budget. On top of that aren't we tied in to a ridiculously small kit sponsorship deal with Puma? That can't help with the wage levels we would like to offer. We really are going to have to rely on some good will from the players wanting to stay for more than financial reasons. Their agents might well be telling them it's all about the money (since they get a percentage) Let's see what unfolds. What a wonderful problem to have though after our achievement last year.

We have extra money coming in from Champions league, so we can easily demonstrate extra revenue. That along with extra sponsorships etc... how much do champions charge for kit sponsorship and stadium naming rights? Kingpower could renegotiate their own contracts, pump money in through the commercial side so that it could be spent on wages and then take it back through the football side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure there are loopholes with bonuses and one-off payments that can be exploited. The club are probably just using it as an excuse to avoid wages spiralling out of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So United can pay Rooney 250K a week and we can't give Albrighton and Jeff a little rise to say thanks for winning the league? 

 

Love this league!  lol

 

Thought about writing for the sun with conclusions like that? haha

 

Reading the article it sounds like we will be fine, as others have said above, we can demonstrate an increase in revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a squads wages can only go up a certain incremental amount based on the previous year's figures, then we're at a disadvantage compared to the wealthier clubs with massive squad wages who came below us last year. Especially so because we won on a relative shoestring budget. On top of that aren't we tied in to a ridiculously small kit sponsorship deal with Puma? That can't help with the wage levels we would like to offer. We really are going to have to rely on some good will from the players wanting to stay for more than financial reasons. Their agents might well be telling them it's all about the money (since they get a percentage) Let's see what unfolds. What a wonderful problem to have though after our achievement last year.

 

I presume the aggregating of revenue over a number of seasons would allow us to offer what we need to.  We can show that three or four fold turnover increases since promotion more than justify a significant increase in player salaries.

 

On another note, couldn't they have found a better picture of Kante?  And is that Kermorgant behind him, in the France squad??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many ways around these restrictions

Eg) Incremental annual guaranteed rise in salary in tandem with a loyalty payment if the leave (which changes each year into the contract)

Players wouldnt get reward each week but would do so over the perod of the contract or if they left .

Agents will work that out with the club if the player really wants to stay. Anyone we really want to keep - we should be able to sort it out. If a player does leave then it poses the question as to whether we weren't that bothered to try and keep them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah the way i read it its practically impossible to raise wages to compete with the traditional big clubs if you are for example, a club like leicester who employ a squad on a reasonable wage budget but have the audacity to win the league.

 

probably just me though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The line that interests me the most is this:

 

"But I don't think if you're owner you are not going to do exit clause anyway..."

 

Our owners strike me as shrewd and competitive business people. Does this mean they'd be prepared to ignore or stall on an exit clause as someone on Foxestalk has mentioned as happening before?

 

Or have I misunderstood what seems to be an accidentally ambiguous comment ie: a) As owners we wouldn't want to include release clauses in contracts or b) We wouldn't transfer someone on the basis of a release clause if it was against our interest?

 

It's an unloaded ask.

 

I honestly don't know what is meant but am equally sure there was no intention to cloud the issue.  It's not always easy to express precise opinion in a foreign language.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...