Smoke and mirrors of wages in Rafa's budget.

[ex_pat_magpie]

Look at the wages in the linky below and let's take Sissoko as a high wages example (there are many more). We are told that Sissoko was sold for £35 million in payment stages. Now Sissoko's wages were £75,000 per week or just under £4 million per year.

http://www.tsmplug.com/football/newc...salaries-2015/

My point is that if Rafa is given funds of say as an example £50 million to include incoming players fee plus the entire contract of wages, using a simple example of a £10 million player, five year contract of £40,000 per week which is another £10 million over the 5 year contract then £20 million has been used from the transfer fund.

My point is that when Sissoko went to Spurs he had about 4+ years left on his 6.5 year contract with us thus saving £16 million on the wages bill.

Surely then wages out saved should be factored in against wages in on an incoming player.

[ghostrider]

I can't believe Sissoko's wages were £75,000 a week. We bought him for 2 million and no way are we going to pay £75,000 a week on that, surely?
If I'm wrong and it is true then it goes against the grain of higher buys on less money.
Sissoko didn't exactly rip up trees for us on any regular basis to warrant such a high price...surely.

[malamoto]

Look at the wages in the linky below and let's take Sissoko as a high wages example (there are many more). We are told that Sissoko was sold for £35 million in payment stages. Now Sissoko's wages were £75,000 per week or just under £4 million per year.

http://www.tsmplug.com/football/newc...salaries-2015/

My point is that if Rafa is given funds of say as an example £50 million to include incoming players fee plus the entire contract of wages, using a simple example of a £10 million player, five year contract of £40,000 per week which is another £10 million over the 5 year contract then £20 million has been used from the transfer fund.

My point is that when Sissoko went to Spurs he had about 4+ years left on his 6.5 year contract with us thus saving £16 million on the wages bill.

Surely then wages out saved should be factored in against wages in on an incoming player.

This is something that has always struck me as being a typical Ashley smokescreen. Any player leaving even if he is out of contract saves us a wage bill, because we no longer pay that salary. I know we have to pay their replacements so there is a cheques and balance thing going on. But I reckon our wage bill is a lot less now than when Ashley took over but that money is never mentioned when discussing transfer budgets . I also know we have running costs but they are a constant, so why cant saved wages be added to our transfer budget

[TheOtherTerryMac]

You also have to wonder where the money goes for the Rugby League weekend and the 3 Ed Sheran Concerts. I know the should go towards running costs and hopefully not into Fattys back pocket.

[ex_pat_magpie]

This is something that has always struck me as being a typical Ashley smokescreen. Any player leaving even if he is out of contract saves us a wage bill, because we no longer pay that salary. I know we have to pay their replacements so there is a cheques and balance thing going on. But I reckon our wage bill is a lot less now than when Ashley took over but that money is never mentioned when discussing transfer budgets . I also know we have running costs but they are a constant, so why cant saved wages be added to our transfer budget

Exactly, the cost of maintaining and running the stadium is a constant, with the exception being unforseen adjustments there for any surplus income above ticket income ought to be available to the club to assist with the running costs.

A set top figure should be agreed with the club accountants to cover all wages and Rafa told that this figure is what he can work within and out goers wages, released added in.

That's what a transfer budget would mean exactly that. £Xmillion amount to pay for players he wants and wages within the structure which the club can afford already allocated and costed in.

[ex_pat_magpie]

I can't believe Sissoko's wages were £75,000 a week. We bought him for 2 million and no way are we going to pay £75,000 a week on that, surely?
If I'm wrong and it is true then it goes against the grain of higher buys on less money.
Sissoko didn't exactly rip up trees for us on any regular basis to warrant such a high price...surely.

Didn't he come in on a much smaller wage but when Fatty realised his sell on value his contract was extended to six and a half years and wages increased accordingly. Thus making him seem valuable to Spuds. Smoke and mirrors again.

[ghostrider]

Didn't he come in on a much smaller wage but when Fatty realised his sell on value his contract was extended to six and a half years and wages increased accordingly. Thus making him seem valuable to Spuds. Smoke and mirrors again.

Ahhh right, maybe that's it. I wondered how his wage could have been so high.

[pboromag]

sissoko was on 30 k a week when he came and 45 a week when he left

spuds apparently pay him 90 k a week and everton would have matched it

[pboromag]

Look at the wages in the linky below and let's take Sissoko as a high wages example (there are many more). We are told that Sissoko was sold for £35 million in payment stages. Now Sissoko's wages were £75,000 per week or just under £4 million per year.

http://www.tsmplug.com/football/newc...salaries-2015/

My point is that if Rafa is given funds of say as an example £50 million to include incoming players fee plus the entire contract of wages, using a simple example of a £10 million player, five year contract of £40,000 per week which is another £10 million over the 5 year contract then £20 million has been used from the transfer fund.

My point is that when Sissoko went to Spurs he had about 4+ years left on his 6.5 year contract with us thus saving £16 million on the wages bill.

Surely then wages out saved should be factored in against wages in on an incoming player.

werent they then
who did we sign after he went and what players had wage increases

agents fees both ways

truth is when nearly or infact over 100 percent of turnover in the fizzy and roughly 73 percent last season goes on wages aloan that doesnt leave a lot for paying players off,agents fees ,managers wages,paying the debt off running the stadium ,running the acadamy
hotels ,transport etc etc etc

most players will have a built in wage increase on their contract

hence why we need some of the deadwood of the wage bill

you can bet your life most incoming players will be on higher than those going out unless its colback itro gayle

infact their current wages are small in the scheme of things

[Jammy89]

sissoko was on 30 k a week when he came and 45 a week when he left

spuds apparently pay him 90 k a week and everton would have matched it

Agree on all of this apart from the 45K.

When we extended his contract i'm sure somewhere it said he was on 60K and was in our top 3 highest paid players.