Vlad the Fox Posted 3 August Posted 3 August 10 minutes ago, MPH said: Looks like it went down to 25k a week when we got relegated… Norwich should be able to afford all of that.. Not all players, I know of one who couldn’t believe the wages he was being offered and the lack of relegation clause, agent told him to get it signed quick. Not his fault, but the clowns running the club.
Popular Post TommyK Posted 3 August Popular Post Posted 3 August (edited) I don't mind Skipp the player. I do mind Skipp the price tag. Edited 4 August by TommyK 5
Jattdogg Posted 3 August Posted 3 August Skipp is perfect for us on league one. His salary isn't and as someone else said, that's not 100% his fault. If we have to pay a substantial amount of his salary with a loan move then I say just keep him. 2
South Shire Fox Posted 4 August Posted 4 August (edited) 4 hours ago, hackneyfox said: The average salary is £4k, according to South Shire Fox we are paying 20 times what most clubs are, 4x20 is 80k a week. If most of our players are on £15k a week then 15k/20 is £750 a week. A wage that clearly no club is paying at this level. Im not denying our wage bill is higher than anyone else’s but in typical FT fashion a huge exaggeration becomes a fact when repeated twice. As we have now got rid of most of our high earners, and hopefully some more to go, OUR FIRST TEAM PLAYERS WILL NOT BE EARNING 20 TIMES WHAT THW OPPOSITION ARE! Simple maths or I’m missing something. 😂 I think you are taking things a bit too literally mate. 20 times was an exageration to say we will be paying massively more then everyone because we are a much bigger club with a lot more revenue(minus Wednesday). But when it comes to teams like Bromley, Afc Wimbeldon etc it probably isnt far off 20 times Edited 4 August by South Shire Fox 1
Lambert09 Posted 4 August Posted 4 August 4 hours ago, Vlad the Fox said: Not all players, I know of one who couldn’t believe the wages he was being offered and the lack of relegation clause, agent told him to get it signed quick. Not his fault, but the clowns running the club. Assuming said person is still at the club ?
Claudio Fannieri Posted 4 August Posted 4 August 10 hours ago, Jimmy said: that's not how it works, the book value means nothing its simply a number on the balance sheet, it only matters if you SELL the player, so loaning him out gets us a loan fee, which is pure profit and saving on his wages to what ever extent PNE would be covering it. He will lose book value regardless of what happens unless we find someone willing to pay the £15m or so needed to cover it, which I very much doubt will happen. Also losing the value is a good thing as it lowers the fee you need to get to record an accounting profit I disagree amortisation is included in the calculation of what you can spend on squad costs. So Skipp would still show as a £4m cost and whatever % of his wage that we had to cover, so he would still be a sizeable chunk of our budget and therefore prevent us from having sufficient financial headroom to replace him. this is why, unless we can agree loan deals where clubs cover the book value as loan and then agree to a decent obligation, the club is desperate to do permanent deals and try to at least cover book values. a loan deals where clubs for Skipp unless it’s to a prem club paying £5m loan fee makes little financial sense. Even with a loan it’s only pure profit when it’s an academy player or a player who no longer has any outstanding book value
coolhandfox Posted 4 August Posted 4 August 5 minutes ago, Claudio Fannieri said: I disagree amortisation is included in the calculation of what you can spend on squad costs. So Skipp would still show as a £4m cost and whatever % of his wage that we had to cover, so he would still be a sizeable chunk of our budget and therefore prevent us from having sufficient financial headroom to replace him. this is why, unless we can agree loan deals where clubs cover the book value as loan and then agree to a decent obligation, the club is desperate to do permanent deals and try to at least cover book values. a loan deals where clubs for Skipp unless it’s to a prem club paying £5m loan fee makes little financial sense. Even with a loan it’s only pure profit when it’s an academy player or a player who no longer has any outstanding book value Player amortisation doesn't count towards the EFL’s Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) for League 1 at all. Unlike the Premier League or Championship sustainability rules. 1
FosseSpark Posted 4 August Posted 4 August Will happily see this error wiped off / partially wiped off the books for a season. Not a serious footballer. 2
Ric Flair Posted 4 August Posted 4 August Yeah SCMP now means we are better able to write off massive losses, however the one issue we still have is the liabilities owed to Spurs. That is what is the concern past this season as we still owe £15m on him. 1 1
LCFCJohn Posted 4 August Posted 4 August 9 hours ago, hackneyfox said: The average salary is £4k, according to South Shire Fox we are paying 20 times what most clubs are, 4x20 is 80k a week. If most of our players are on £15k a week then 15k/20 is £750 a week. A wage that clearly no club is paying at this level. Im not denying our wage bill is higher than anyone else’s but in typical FT fashion a huge exaggeration becomes a fact when repeated twice. As we have now got rid of most of our high earners, and hopefully some more to go, OUR FIRST TEAM PLAYERS WILL NOT BE EARNING 20 TIMES WHAT THW OPPOSITION ARE! Simple maths or I’m missing something. You’d hope that with a number of the big earners gone, most of ours now (and the likes of Chaplin and Cullen) will be on wages that whilst will be higher than probably anyone else, would be in line with what you’d likely see in any division where you have bigger and smaller teams for the level. Such as Man City and Chelsea etc compared to any newly promoted sides or the likes of Brentford and Bournemouth or Wolves and West Ham compared to your Portsmouth, Preston, Blackburn’s etc of the Championship. It’s not a problem on its own if they are providing value for money and if it’s not compromising the financial position of the club which is of course where we have failed for a number of years. Average wise, it will still be inflated by a handful of top high earnings hanging on. Hopefully it is balanced at the other end by the number of youth players in and around the squad. 1
Vlad the Fox Posted 4 August Posted 4 August 3 hours ago, Lambert09 said: Assuming said person is still at the club ? Yes.
Claudio Fannieri Posted 4 August Posted 4 August 1 hour ago, coolhandfox said: Player amortisation doesn't count towards the EFL’s Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) for League 1 at all. Unlike the Premier League or Championship sustainability rules. Apologies to you and @Jimmy as I had read somewhere that amortisation was included. For this season in relation to squad cost compliance we could indeed take a book value loss on a player like Skipp and any incoming loan fee can be used as additional revenue, however it’s more important we cover his wages as any under recovery would impact our ability to reinvest. however we would take a hit in our accounts still on book value shortfall.
teblin Posted 4 August Posted 4 August 39 minutes ago, Claudio Fannieri said: Apologies to you and @Jimmy as I had read somewhere that amortisation was included. For this season in relation to squad cost compliance we could indeed take a book value loss on a player like Skipp and any incoming loan fee can be used as additional revenue, however it’s more important we cover his wages as any under recovery would impact our ability to reinvest. however we would take a hit in our accounts still on book value shortfall. Also I don't think the owners are thinking anything other than cashflow to be honest. 1
kenny Posted 4 August Posted 4 August 1 hour ago, Vlad the Fox said: Yes. BDCR would be my guess. I reckon he and the club knew about his injury problems when he signed.
LCFCCKEANO Posted 4 August Posted 4 August We won’t loan Skipp out I don’t think, we don’t have another player who plays that 6 role Martin likes, the Downes role. A lot of clamour for Braybrooke but I think he is too small and weak to be in that role, and Choudhury isn’t technically good enough, Martin seems to be using both as 8’s. Reckon him, Souttar and Nelson will be our big wage players next season unless Sheffield Utd stump up the entire fee for Souttar. 1
coolhandfox Posted 4 August Posted 4 August 1 hour ago, Claudio Fannieri said: Apologies to you and @Jimmy as I had read somewhere that amortisation was included. For this season in relation to squad cost compliance we could indeed take a book value loss on a player like Skipp and any incoming loan fee can be used as additional revenue, however it’s more important we cover his wages as any under recovery would impact our ability to reinvest. however we would take a hit in our accounts still on book value shortfall. This remains important should we secure promotion, as we would then be subject to the Championship's Profitability and Sustainability (P&S) regulations Also help to us to understand our operating profit/loss. I just think it less of a factor in whether we loan some out or not in the League 1. 1
coolhandfox Posted 4 August Posted 4 August 16 minutes ago, LCFCCKEANO said: We won’t loan Skipp out I don’t think, we don’t have another player who plays that 6 role Martin likes, the Downes role. A lot of clamour for Braybrooke but I think he is too small and weak to be in that role, and Choudhury isn’t technically good enough, Martin seems to be using both as 8’s. Reckon him, Souttar and Nelson will be our big wage players next season unless Sheffield Utd stump up the entire fee for Souttar. Braybrooke is taller than Skipp and, in my view, just as physically capable. He is also coming off a season in League Two, which is a very physical league, so he should be well prepared for that side of the game. With the amount of possession we're likely to have, I think the defensive midfield role will be more about controlling and dictating the game than acting as an outright destroyer, which I think Braybrooke is better suited to then Skipp. 1
Muzzy_no7 Posted 4 August Posted 4 August As some others have said if we manage to loan out Skipp and then bring Archie Collins in then that’s good business.
Popular Post AKCJ Posted 4 August Popular Post Posted 4 August 2 hours ago, Ric Flair said: Yeah SCMP now means we are better able to write off massive losses, however the one issue we still have is the liabilities owed to Spurs. That is what is the concern past this season as we still owe £15m on him. Everyone surrounding this deal should be sacked. "Gross incompetence and negligence" doesn't even begin to cover it. Yet Aiyawatt is giving these people promotions and more power. It is crazy. No other club is run like this one. 5
honeybradger Posted 4 August Posted 4 August 24 minutes ago, LCFCCKEANO said: We won’t loan Skipp out I don’t think, we don’t have another player who plays that 6 role Martin likes, the Downes role. A lot of clamour for Braybrooke but I think he is too small and weak to be in that role, and Choudhury isn’t technically good enough, Martin seems to be using both as 8’s. Reckon him, Souttar and Nelson will be our big wage players next season unless Sheffield Utd stump up the entire fee for Souttar. I have it on good authority that Braybrooke has been regularly seen backing Skipp into a corner and tying his shoelaces together.
Popular Post Rubbersoul Posted 4 August Popular Post Posted 4 August How on earth are we still doing the Braybrooke is a little weakling nonsense. He was one of the best defensive players in League 2 last season. 5
RowlattsFox Posted 4 August Posted 4 August I don't have too much hate against Oliver Skipp but other than leaving us short if he isnt replaced, we aren't going to miss him at all from a playing sense. I'd like us to replace him with someone with a bit of physicality in midfield. 1
moore_94 Posted 4 August Author Posted 4 August 35 minutes ago, LCFCCKEANO said: We won’t loan Skipp out I don’t think, we don’t have another player who plays that 6 role Martin likes, the Downes role. A lot of clamour for Braybrooke but I think he is too small and weak to be in that role, and Choudhury isn’t technically good enough, Martin seems to be using both as 8’s. Reckon him, Souttar and Nelson will be our big wage players next season unless Sheffield Utd stump up the entire fee for Souttar. Braybrooke definitely isn’t too small and weak to be in that role - yes it was in a lower league but he was good at it in league two, whilst also still doing the going forward stuff which Skipp can’t do 1
LCFCCKEANO Posted 4 August Posted 4 August 13 minutes ago, moore_94 said: Braybrooke definitely isn’t too small and weak to be in that role - yes it was in a lower league but he was good at it in league two, whilst also still doing the going forward stuff which Skipp can’t do For the Flynn Downes role I think he is, and judging by the fact Martin has flat out refused to use him there at all and has used Neale instead shows he clearly feels the same
Recommended Posts