Finances

[RowlattsFox]

Bet we haven't got any relegation clauses in anyone's contract either  

 

Mistakes were made last summer, signing Daka to be 3rd choice was a waste of money that could've been used elsewhere, same for Soumare. Continuing to other new contracts to Ward, Choudhury, Mendy and even Albrighton over the years. 

[Fear Of The Fox]

2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

The Premier League haven't got the balls to deduct points for breach of FFP (or more importantly, the lawyers). 

No points can be deducted in PL. The PRODUCT can't afford this. The whole FFP is a joke. Our board didn't proceed to signings because they want their accounts and businesses tidy and not because they're afraid of a potential fine. This is what you get with the new FFP, just a fine which you can also settle by agreement. 

Top wants to have a well run, financially tidy business. Because you're possibly going to bring into the discussion the high wages, it's out of his hands. You wanna be competitive in PL? You have to pay. 

[desertfox2]

When we were supposedly looking at Dawson and I checked what his wages were listed at online it was showing between 42 and 52k a week. If this is true then that is our problem right there. Pretty much our whole sub bench is probably on nearly double that and he is extremely experienced as a starter in the premier league. Twice the player of Vestergaard and on half the money for example. Moyes is mentioned as 3m a year vs Rodgers at 10m. Something had to give and the contracts have all been given under Rodgers management. With that said, the window is closed now, it looks like we are stuck with him due to the contract he has so everyone pointing fingers at each other to blame is only going to lead one way and that's downwards. The only way out of this is if everyone now points in the same direction. UTF. 

[An Sionnach]

No doubt when the Shrivaddhanaprabha's bought the club they had a business plan that would keep us self sustaining on the earning power of the club at the time. However the great escape , title winning period changed all of that.The expectation of the fans that we could sustain that success needed a massive amount of investment and our earning power has not kept up. They do not appear to be in a position to fund the shortfall themselves so we need another way . Like Newcastle that may mean new owners and after eleven years they may decide to pass the club on.

[turlo]

interesting

 

 

[taupe]

1 hour ago, when_you're_smiling said:

It’s all relative though. Compared with the teams we’re trying to go up against its comparatively small wages we pay out. The problem with FFP is instead it works by comparing our wages with our (often much) smaller turnover.

Relative? Will the FFP adjudicator type person apply such an adjustment? I'd say it's absolute

 

Obviously, I know what you're saying.

 

 

Edited 2 September 2022 by taupe

[taupe]

1 hour ago, turlo said:

It was a short interview with Rob Tanner and didn't go into detail + might only have limited detail himself - whether he gets this direct from someone in the club or not who knows. The stuff around our wage bill being too high is common knowledge, so could be his own interpretation of the information available by looking at the clubs accounts

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to ask you specifically when I quoted you. I didn't think you'd know the details just from hearing the interview

 

Maybe Tanner scaled up the failed Praet-Torino loan deal into a general statement when in fact it was the only example. Certainly I was not aware of any other possible outgoing loans falling through, due to wages or otherwise.

[when_you're_smiling]

1 hour ago, taupe said:

Relative? Will the FFP adjudicator type person apply such an adjustment? I'd say it's absolute

 

Obviously, I know what you're saying.

 

 

Yeah. Sadly, part of it is beyond the club’s control and just modern football. “We don’t want too many Leicesters” etc.

 

Find that part more depressing than anything. A club like ours has no room for mistakes or will be able to spend years in relative wilderness like Arsenal and Man U and still spend hundreds of millions to catch up again like they have/are attempting to do.

[splinterdream]

2 hours ago, desertfox2 said:

When we were supposedly looking at Dawson and I checked what his wages were listed at online it was showing between 42 and 52k a week. If this is true then that is our problem right there. Pretty much our whole sub bench is probably on nearly double that and he is extremely experienced as a starter in the premier league. Twice the player of Vestergaard and on half the money for example. Moyes is mentioned as 3m a year vs Rodgers at 10m. Something had to give and the contracts have all been given under Rodgers management. With that said, the window is closed now, it looks like we are stuck with him due to the contract he has so everyone pointing fingers at each other to blame is only going to lead one way and that's downwards. The only way out of this is if everyone now points in the same direction. UTF. 

And you have to wonder who is to blame and why haven't they been sacked?

[desertfox2]

Just now, splinterdream said:

And you have to wonder who is to blame and why haven't they been sacked?

The only reason for that can be that his contract is 10m per year with 3 years left and there's no way he's resigning from that so the cost of sacking him and replacing him is likely huge.

[splinterdream]

2 minutes ago, desertfox2 said:

The only reason for that can be that his contract is 10m per year with 3 years left and there's no way he's resigning from that so the cost of sacking him and replacing him is likely huge.

You really think Rodgers negotiates contracts and transfer fees?

I mean he might but I highly doubt it.

I think most of us know that Rodgers isn't the manager that the media think he is but let's not kid ourselves he is the only issue at the club.

[l444ry]

12 minutes ago, desertfox2 said:

The only reason for that can be that his contract is 10m per year with 3 years left and there's no way he's resigning from that so the cost of sacking him and replacing him is likely huge.

No way is he on £10 million a year. 

[desertfox2]

14 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

You really think Rodgers negotiates contracts and transfer fees?

I mean he might but I highly doubt it.

I think most of us know that Rodgers isn't the manager that the media think he is but let's not kid ourselves he is the only issue at the club.

No but he recommended who was needed and also got a job for his old mate Congerton under whose watch most of the damage was done. 

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, l444ry said:

No way is he on £10 million a year. 

Not far short - nearer 9

[PoshhFox]

Net spend in the last 5 seasons

[desertfox2]

8 minutes ago, l444ry said:

No way is he on £10 million a year. 

He was on 5 million originally apparently and doubled it after the FA Cup and when Arsenal were "interested".  Many sources  have his second contract as 10m and him as one of the highest paid managers in the league. When he signed it he was on more than Klopp some papers say. Klopp has since got a new contract. It would certainly explain why we don't just sack him and perhaps why some moves were made hoping he would resign which let's face it he's never going to with that contract until 2025.

[desertfox2]

5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Not far short - nearer 9

I stand corrected. It still explains why he hasn't been sacked as its runs until 2025

[desertfox2]

5 minutes ago, PoshhFox said:

Net spend in the last 5 seasons

That's a bit misleading though as it includes the money from Fofana which we had no time to spend, plus didn't trust Rodgers to spend in full and it doesn't account for wages. Where are we in the league table of wages? That would be interesting to see if you could find that.

Edited 2 September 2022 by desertfox2
Spell

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, desertfox2 said:

I stand corrected. It still explains why he hasn't been sacked as its runs until 2025

We won’t have to pay him off to 2025 unless he intends not to take another job for three years and our lawyers are really awful ….

 

most likely max £13.5m 

[desertfox2]

Just now, st albans fox said:

We won’t have to pay him off to 2025 unless he intends not to take another job for three years and our lawyers are really awful ….

 

most likely max £13.5m 

What would happen though if another club comes along and offers him a salary of say 3m a year. Wouldn't we have to pay him 6 per year until his contract expires? He will get a job but Moyes is on 3m so I mean he would probably be lucky to get that from someone.

[st albans fox]

11 minutes ago, PoshhFox said:

Net spend in the last 5 seasons

We can’t get away from the fact that we have a low nett spend model where we are trying to be sustainable whilst others are not. Moyes has a nerve moaning about the spend of West Ham and the narrative that levy doesn’t spend is put to bed.  Having made it to the top of the top table through questionable means, Man City are now running a pretty tight ship on fees. 

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, desertfox2 said:

What would happen though if another club comes along and offers him a salary of say 3m a year. Wouldn't we have to pay him 6 per year until his contract expires? He will get a job but Moyes is on 3m so I mean he would probably be lucky to get that from someone.

Nope 

we put him on gardening leave or we negotiate a severance 

the severance would be around 13.5 unless we negotiated a terrible contract 

the gardening leave could theoretically go to 2025 when his contract expires. 
but if he takes a new job in the meantime then he has to resign from his existing/ongoing contract with us. 
 

so he would likely want to take the severance option 

 

Edited 2 September 2022 by st albans fox

[desertfox2]

8 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Nope 

we put him on gardening leave or we negotiate a severance 

the severance would be around 13.5 unless we negotiated a terrible contract 

the gardening leave could theoretically go to 2025 when his contract expires. 
but if he takes a new job in the meantime then he has to resign from his existing/ongoing contract with us. 
 

so he would likely want to take the severance option 

 

That's reassuring.  It's still 13.5m but if things don't improve soon I think that the board may just bite the bullet at that amount and put someone new in with some money to spend in Jan. It's still bad but not almost 3 years at 9 and a bit million per year bad.

[splinterdream]

3 hours ago, turlo said:

interesting

 

 

Why aren't West Ham putting themselves on a self imposed transfer embargo?

[sm1]

25 minutes ago, PoshhFox said:

Net spend in the last 5 seasons

Wonderful illustration of how little we actually spend. Even if you take the Fofana/Woet deals out the equation, we still have the 17th lowest net spend. Also FFP only applies if you qualify for Europe and we're a long way away from that, so why are the hierarchy so desperate to adhere to these rule immediately.