Bazly Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 Last year Leicester City won the EPL on the cheap. £20k to £40k a week players when the 'elite' pay anything up to £220k. Its a different ball game though, the elite get shirt sponsorship deals worth 75 times what the LC shirt sponsorship deal is and the clubs can recoup a big chunk of the big wages via global shirt sales and other sponsorship. Now, we are having to pay the big wages for players at the start of last season that you couldn't give away but with low level sponsorship and invariably lower level shirt sales. It means our top players cost our club more than the £220k a week players do at other clubs. By boosting wage levels LC are effectively paying and guaranteeing to pay for many years for last years success when everyone know it isn't going to be repeated this year. So why pay the big wages at all? It could turn out to be a costly mistake to double or treble players wages overnight rather than cashing in and buying in lower cost replacements. The club had a five year plan to become a top 6 side, the plan has been overtaken by events and winning the league is priceless but trebling wages doesn't affect that, its a historic fact sealed forever in time. Trebling wages has clearly raised squad rivalry and introduce a large element of financial risk if the enriched players loose their form. Why is Kasper on a reported £100k a week when Kante was reportedly only offered £80k, it doesn't make any sense? We could have sold 3 or 4 players for £100mn and invested part of that in some good £50k a week replacements with a realistic expectation of survival in the league. I think Southampton with an effective sell and replace policy has maintained their team harmony than we may well have lost with a bunch of players looking for long term pay out for a one off last season. In the owners and manager we have to trust but there are definite clouds on the horizon. We know that well paid underperforming players refuse to be transferred and we may well see a few of those over then next 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VLC86 Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 Well the other option is to keep people on £20k-£40k and see them picked off like low hanging fruit so which would you prefer? Tough scenario, almost impossible to balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claridge Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 2 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said: Well the other option is to keep people on £20k-£40k and see them picked off like low hanging fruit so which would you prefer? Tough scenario, almost impossible to balance. Pay for quality players and be a success balances everything out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazly Posted 17 August 2016 Author Share Posted 17 August 2016 6 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said: Well the other option is to keep people on £20k-£40k and see them picked off like low hanging fruit so which would you prefer? Tough scenario, almost impossible to balance. I'd prefer to raise the wages in line with expectations. Spurs have a lot of £30k to £50k players and they haven't been raided. Raising wages to £100k a week is in with the big boys but without the merchandising to offset the costs. Its high risk, just ask Blackburn, QPR, Portsmouth, Leeds etc supporters how that can work out. Its high risk that has never paid off, whereas Southampton have managed top half for a long time now on a higher player (because they are higher performers) rotation than most clubs whilst retaining a wage structure tied to expectations and resources. It is an impossible balance but we are going high risk on this for what possible reward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrummieFOX Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 Yeh, no one is saying keep them at £20-£40k but we should be strong in negotiations. Kasper on £100k is frankly ridiculous. He is far from that good and it sets a precedent. It's a tough thing to do but if players are holding us to these sorts of wages, then we should have faith in our scouting system (I know, I know) and look to replace them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 KAPSPER IS NOT ON 100K/WEEK how many times does this have to be posted before it's understood?????? our global shirt sales sales last season were fifth highest in the prem?? We haven't spent any money yet this summer yet have an income 100m more than last season The management of the club are very savvy. You don't need to worry about money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filbertway Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 Haha as if we're paying Kasper 100k a week. That's mental. I assume this is including appearance bonuses and such. Nobody would be stupid enough to offer 100k a week basic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lcfc_lass10 Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 Where's the source to say that Kasper is on 100k a week? Heard a lot of people say it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxinsocks Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 as part of our progress we have to manage our wage bills. This requires a number of things to be in place. First we have to put in place robust contracts and when taking on younger or inexperienced players we need to avoid the silly exit clauses etc. But to keep the players happy we need to ensure that we are paying the going rate (for their age, positions nd performance...). If they think they are been held to a contract at a low wage then they will be unhappy and demotivated. Each year we should proactively upgrade the contracts. We seem to be playing catch up - we had to work to keep vardy... I suspect Kante's issue was not the money... and now we are playing catch up with Drinky. IF the agent of a spurs player though he could move them on for bigger wages (and a drink for himself) then I am sure he would try... I suspect that other clubs don't like dealing with levy.... and so don't bother. This all needs a lot of careful though and I wonder if we need to develop more skills in this area. In my experience of managing people with sought after talents they wants to feel their pay is equitable (but it doesn't have to be stratospheric) - they just want to feel recognised and not being taken advantage of in comparison to other employment available. The club needs to get on top of this and be proactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 The other option is the Southampton model, let our stars go and replace them with cheaper and in many cases better options. Money isn't really an issue, we earned £100 million last season in prize and TV money, and it could top £150 million this season with more TV games and Champions league money. Tickets are in high demand, shirt sales are through the roof, we have just been in a lucrative money spinning friendly tournament. Our net transfer fee outlay is around 0 this summer with possible 8 figure transfers for Schlupp and Ulloa to come. Money is not the issue we can cover these wages and then some, the issue is the attitudes these wages bring about and the sense of entitlement and having made it that could be attributed to perfomances like on Saturday. We didn't win the league because of how much we paid the players, we won the league because we operated as a team, a single unit all working hard together, if money disputes or player greed/ambition starts to affect that then we may have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 20 minutes ago, filbertway said: Haha as if we're paying Kasper 100k a week. That's mental. I assume this is including appearance bonuses and such. Nobody would be stupid enough to offer 100k a week basic. You don't reckon? I do. Insane amount to pay a Keeper of his ability that it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 3 minutes ago, Captain... said: The other option is the Southampton model, let our stars go and replace them with cheaper and in many cases better options. Money isn't really an issue, we earned £100 million last season in prize and TV money, and it could top £150 million this season with more TV games and Champions league money. Tickets are in high demand, shirt sales are through the roof, we have just been in a lucrative money spinning friendly tournament. Our net transfer fee outlay is around 0 this summer with possible 8 figure transfers for Schlupp and Ulloa to come. Money is not the issue we can cover these wages and then some, the issue is the attitudes these wages bring about and the sense of entitlement and having made it that could be attributed to perfomances like on Saturday. We didn't win the league because of how much we paid the players, we won the league because we operated as a team, a single unit all working hard together, if money disputes or player greed/ambition starts to affect that then we may have a problem. Oh, if we get relegated, we are all different levels kind of fcked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sol thewall Bamba Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 Not gunna lie, I stopped reading as soon as you wrote 'EPL'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazly Posted 17 August 2016 Author Share Posted 17 August 2016 27 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said: Not gunna lie, I stopped reading as soon as you wrote 'EPL'. So you got 6 words into it and feel the need to write 12 back. You are class, not sure what level but class none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sol thewall Bamba Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 23 minutes ago, Bazly said: So you got 6 words into it and feel the need to write 12 back. You are class, not sure what level but class none the less. You're gunna do well here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VLC86 Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 May I be the first person on this forum to say Kasper is not worth £100k a week? Struggling to understand why this hasn't been mentioned before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 1 hour ago, Manwell Pablo said: Oh, if we get relegated, we are all different levels kind of fcked. Not really, parachute payments are massive I would assume all contracts have relegation clauses in them and that the £100,000 is performance appearance related and not basic. Even if not Mahrez, Drinkwater, Kasper would probably all leave if we got relegated. We get the money for Champions League and Premier league at the end of the season, that will be £100m even if we finish bottom of the league and don't win a point in the Group stages of the CL. Money is not an issue even if we get relegated. Our reserves are going for over £10m. The issue is not what we are spending on wages the issue is the impact that has on the mentality of our squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 2 minutes ago, Captain... said: Not really, parachute payments are massive I would assume all contracts have relegation clauses in them and that the £100,000 is performance appearance related and not basic. Even if not Mahrez, Drinkwater, Kasper would probably all leave if we got relegated. We get the money for Champions League and Premier league at the end of the season, that will be £100m even if we finish bottom of the league and don't win a point in the Group stages of the CL. Money is not an issue even if we get relegated. Our reserves are going for over £10m. The issue is not what we are spending on wages the issue is the impact that has on the mentality of our squad. Are they? No idea what they are anymore, be surprised they are normally just enough to give you a bit of an edge and sort your fiances out. As for assume 100k has relegation and performance clauses I'm afraid assume makes an ass out of me and u, we've go no idea, and I doubt the relegation reduction would be that big as I doubt the players would agree to it. I don't think they'd nesc leave if we get relegated, problem with saying they'd all leave if we get relegated is you then have to find a buyer willing to stump up the wages we are now paying them. If we do go down they are all going to be branded lower end / Championship players (which a lot of them have been their entire career up until last season) who had one freak fantastic season. No one is going to pay a player like that 70 grand a week, and the player has no obligation to leave now they have their contract. Still, hopefully that wont happen and is unlikely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 By paying higher wages the release clause will go up, meaning when Mahrez does go it won't be on the cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkie1999 Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 1 hour ago, Bazly said: So you got 6 words into it and feel the need to write 12 back. You are class, not sure what level but class none the less. 7, cos he read EPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 The big problem of winning the league is the wages. Players would have been on "cheaper" contracts ie 20k-45k and that's alright as that's standard for a club like ourselves now. But after winning the league we've really failed in giving in to the players. Vardy signed a deal for reported 80k, he rejects Arsenal and it suddenly shoots up another 20k. I don't get it. The club should have simply asked "do you want to stay or leave?". Kasper is an average goalkeeper and is reportedly on 100k a week - a joke. Get rid and get in a better goalkeeper for 50% of that. I understand the owners might be savvy and "fans don't have to worry about money" but there's more factors in it than that. Drinkwater reportedly rejects a 80k contract, and why not, because if he sees other valuable players on 100k a week why can't he get that!? And then if the club give in why would that stop anybody else asking the same. We've got to be more clinical than simply agree to what players demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 1 hour ago, Manwell Pablo said: Are they? No idea what they are anymore, be surprised they are normally just enough to give you a bit of an edge and sort your fiances out. As for assume 100k has relegation and performance clauses I'm afraid assume makes an ass out of me and u, we've go no idea, and I doubt the relegation reduction would be that big as I doubt the players would agree to it. I don't think they'd nesc leave if we get relegated, problem with saying they'd all leave if we get relegated is you then have to find a buyer willing to stump up the wages we are now paying them. If we do go down they are all going to be branded lower end / Championship players (which a lot of them have been their entire career up until last season) who had one freak fantastic season. No one is going to pay a player like that 70 grand a week, and the player has no obligation to leave now they have their contract. Still, hopefully that wont happen and is unlikely to happen. How is it paid? Clubs get the following amounts over the three seasons. In season one, 2016-17, Villa would get £40 million In season two, 2017-18, Villa would get £33 million In season three, 2018-19, Villa would get £14 million. The above is from the Birmingham mail, so apologies for the accent. The parachute payments in the first year would nearly cover our wage bill according to this source: http://www.totalsportek.com/money/leicester-city-salaries/ Although that doesn't have Kaputska or Morgan's new deal on it, the wages reported there work out at nearly £1m a week, so £52m a year We would reduce that somewhat after being relegated and recoup some in transfer fees and have the final year of Prem and CL money (around £150m) to play with and £40m in parachute payments would cover the rest, along with Championship prize money on top of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 15 minutes ago, Captain... said: How is it paid? Clubs get the following amounts over the three seasons. In season one, 2016-17, Villa would get £40 million In season two, 2017-18, Villa would get £33 million In season three, 2018-19, Villa would get £14 million. The above is from the Birmingham mail, so apologies for the accent. The parachute payments in the first year would nearly cover our wage bill according to this source: http://www.totalsportek.com/money/leicester-city-salaries/ Although that doesn't have Kaputska or Morgan's new deal on it, the wages reported there work out at nearly £1m a week, so £52m a year We would reduce that somewhat after being relegated and recoup some in transfer fees and have the final year of Prem and CL money (around £150m) to play with and £40m in parachute payments would cover the rest, along with Championship prize money on top of that. I'd still not fancy players on 100k in the Championship and don't think it'll be sustainable. Lot more too these financial matters than fans understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 Is the info above factual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 17 August 2016 Share Posted 17 August 2016 2 minutes ago, Col city fan said: Is the info above factual? Parachute payment info taken from here: http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/how-much-aston-villa-parachute-11161706 Wages from here: http://www.totalsportek.com/money/leicester-city-salaries/ Had to add the wages up in Excel to get £995,000 per week, but that is before Morgan's new deal and Kaputska and doesn't include Ranieri or the staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.