Smith - I know my reputation is tarnished

[Grumpy King of the West]

What I meant was that if you're going to gamble then you do it full-bloodedly, as Wolves did. Chansiri half-heartedly gambled, mindful of FFP, and ultimately failed.

How much money a non-parachute club posseses is irrelevant, as it can only spend what its turnover allows. This is why Chansiri increased ticket prices so much, and invented taxi firms, to increase the size of the turnover so he could spend more of his money. But for FFP he'd probably have spent much more in a shorter space of time and built a team strong enough to go up. In other words he'd have bought his way out of the Championship.

His argument would be that there was no difference between his money and the parachute cash the relegated teams are gifted, save for the fact that they can spend their cash how they like, regardless of turnover. That was pretty much Martin Samuel's argument too.

The money was never all Chansiri's anyway, as it also came from his family. Their input stopped when Chansiri failed, which is why he latterly struggled to meet his financial commitments. I don't blame them.

He "half-heartedly gambled" and yet 'wages to turnover ratio' hit circa 170%!!! Jeez, I'd hate to see your version of an 'all in' move!!!

You have however used a word (wittingly or not) which I think hits the nail on the head: GAMBLED.

A basket case of a club run by a clown and a chancer.

PS - The wages offered to Smith are nowhere near £20k p.w. Even by SWFC's crazy standards that's way out of kilter. What has annoyed most Millers supporters is that SWFC has offered wages to a player(s) that any sane business man, financial advisor or accountant, would say it simply cannot afford to offer. But again, the club is gambling. That would be fine, and fun to watch, if it hadn't directly affected our club. Our club which has a wages to turnover ratio WELL below 100%. And whilst all that has happened we've had deluded, thick as mince, Sheffield supporters trying to lord it over us. Such fans wouldn't know a set of accounts if they were slapped around the face with them like a wet tuna!

When this all goes t*ts up are you going to come on here and show some contrition?

[Galley On]

In the words of Mr. N Diamond "money talks, but it don't sing and dance and it don't walk", which is topical because Smithy and Icky have walked and created a right song and dance . Personally, I was slightly disappointed when PW said that they may stay, for the reasons already being given. Neither set the Championship on fire last time and clubs know how we play Smith. Of course they did well last season, but now we have the opportunity to change systems. We now have a mix up front of experience and youth and the other two signings are young. If Wiles goes I think some of the money should go on REG and Tu-Tu as well as centre back cover. A couple of Prem loans and we should have a decent squad.

[LesHiboux]

He "half-heartedly gambled" and yet 'wages to turnover ratio' hit circa 170%!!! Jeez, I'd hate to see your version of an 'all in' move!!!

You have however used a word (wittingly or not) which I think hits the nail on the head: GAMBLED.

A basket case of a club run by a clown and a chancer.

PS - The wages offered to Smith are nowhere near £20k p.w. Even by SWFC's crazy standards that's way out of kilter. What has annoyed most Millers supporters is that SWFC has offered wages to a player(s) that any sane business man, financial advisor or accountant, would say it simply cannot afford to offer. But again, the club is gambling. That would be fine, and fun to watch, if it hadn't directly affected our club. Our club which has a wages to turnover ratio WELL below 100%. And whilst all that has happened we've had deluded, thick as mince, Sheffield supporters trying to lord it over us. Such fans wouldn't know a set of accounts if they were slapped around the face with them like a wet tuna!

When this all goes t*ts up are you going to come on here and show some contrition?

To begin with, I don't agree with all this money in football, and I wouldn't describe myself as one who lords it over others. In my opinion it's money which is killing the game, and I've already expressed my opinion about Bannan. Once the maximum wage was abolished in 1962 it gave carte blanche for a handful of wealthy clubs to hog all the best players, and from then on the writing was on the wall. Ironically, Wednesday were one of the few who adhered to the old system of having thousands of small shareholders rather than a rich owner, and the club almost had to go extinct before the system was finally changed in 2010.

If a Championship club wants to go to the PL it has to have (a) parachute cash (b) a top manager, the type who comes around once in a generation (like Wilder) or (c) a chairman who speculates to accumulate. There's a difference between a club which borrows hand over fist to try to get to the PL on the one hand, which is gambling, and Derby and Wednesday who actually had the money on the other. Their argument was that there's no difference between their having several hundred million to spend and the parachute clubs' gifted money, which there isn't. The difference is that there are restrictions on them which there aren't on the parachute clubs. I reiterate, there's a difference between a club borrowing heavily to try to get to the PL, and one which has the cash in its possession without having to borrow it. So the rules were effective before Chansiri arrived, as it prevented Wednesday gambling to get to the PL, but they were ineffective after Chansiri's arrival as they stopped him from achieving his goal. I don't agree with a club borrowing to get to the PL, but it should be allowed to spend its money if it has it, just like the parachute clubs do.

I wouldn't put Chansiri in charge of a coconut shy, so I wouldn't fancy Wednesday under any system, but there are competent chairmen who are affected. These rules don't only apply to Wednesday, they also apply to Rotherham. Barnsley got a rich owner, after all, so who's to say that the Millers won't get the same when TS eventually leaves? Rotherham's situation would be even worse than Wednesday's, as the club has a smaller turnover. Imagine a scenario where Rotherham's in the Championship, with a really good manager, and a wealthy owner. The club has the means to get to the PL but is only allowed to spend a fraction of the cash in its possession, so the manager quits and the chance is lost. You could argue that's exactly what happened to Barnsley, who instead of going up to the PL went down to the Third.

[Grumpy King of the West]

To begin with, I don't agree with all this money in football, and I wouldn't describe myself as one who lords it over others. In my opinion it's money which is killing the game, and I've already expressed my opinion about Bannan. Once the maximum wage was abolished in 1962 it gave carte blanche for a handful of wealthy clubs to hog all the best players, and from then on the writing was on the wall. Ironically, Wednesday were one of the few who adhered to the old system of having thousands of small shareholders rather than a rich owner, and the club almost had to go extinct before the system was finally changed in 2010.

If a Championship club wants to go to the PL it has to have (a) parachute cash (b) a top manager, the type who comes around once in a generation (like Wilder) or (c) a chairman who speculates to accumulate. There's a difference between a club which borrows hand over fist to try to get to the PL on the one hand, which is gambling, and Derby and Wednesday who actually had the money on the other. Their argument was that there's no difference between their having several hundred million to spend and the parachute clubs' gifted money, which there isn't. The difference is that there are restrictions on them which there aren't on the parachute clubs. I reiterate, there's a difference between a club borrowing heavily to try to get to the PL, and one which has the cash in its possession without having to borrow it. So the rules were effective before Chansiri arrived, as it prevented Wednesday gambling to get to the PL, but they were ineffective after Chansiri's arrival as they stopped him from achieving his goal. I don't agree with a club borrowing to get to the PL, but it should be allowed to spend its money if it has it, just like the parachute clubs do.

I wouldn't put Chansiri in charge of a coconut shy, so I wouldn't fancy Wednesday under any system, but there are competent chairmen who are affected. These rules don't only apply to Wednesday, they also apply to Rotherham. Barnsley got a rich owner, after all, so who's to say that the Millers won't get the same when TS eventually leaves? Rotherham's situation would be even worse than Wednesday's, as the club has a smaller turnover. Imagine a scenario where Rotherham's in the Championship, with a really good manager, and a wealthy owner. The club has the means to get to the PL but is only allowed to spend a fraction of the cash in its possession, so the manager quits and the chance is lost. You could argue that's exactly what happened to Barnsley, who instead of going up to the PL went down to the Third.

You keep saying that Chansiri had the money. There's no evidence of that. Quite the opposite - setting up phantom businesses, etc.
Certainly he was prepared to spend SOMEBODY'S money, but it was total sh*t or bust. No long term strategy, just throw the mortgage on "red" and pray it's not "black". I'm sorry but I don't see Derby or Sheffield as poor innocent victims in any of this. That said, I think everybody agrees regarding parachute payments. They're a perverse policy.

It also looks like you've fallen for the propaganda over at Barnsley. The owners there were just charlatans. "Richest in the EFL". Yeah, and I've got some magic beans for sale.

What is your view on the wages to turnover ratio?

Speaking of turnover (as you mentioned RUFC's in comparison to Sheffields), there's a saying in finance which goes like this:
Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, but cash is king. The time before last in the Championship, RUFC posted a profit whereas Sheffield literally could not meet its monthly payroll liability.

In summary, terms have clearly been offered to two players that your club really should not be offering. It really feels like yet another throw of the dice.

[welovebooth]

He was always going to leave as we couldn't match wages.

For me it's that it dragged on for so long.

Warney made him into the player he is.
If it wasn't for warney and rufc he would off probably been playing non league now.

But it's just a money move that's all it is and I can understand that

But it's still a kick in the teeth going to Wednesday.

That picture off him in the Wednesday shirt pulling the badge raising his arm hasn't helped either

[CAMiller]

Speaking of turnover (as you mentioned RUFC's in comparison to Sheffields), there's a saying in finance which goes like this: Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, but cash is king. The time before last in the Championship, RUFC posted a profit whereas Sheffield literally could not meet its monthly payroll liability.

Been a while since I've heard that one GKOTW. The version I'm used to is 'but cash is reality'. Same principle but has a better poetic ring to it.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Been a while since I've heard that one GKOTW. The version I'm used to is 'but cash is reality'. Same principle but has a better poetic ring to it.

Or the Charles Dickens one:-

“‘My other piece of advice, Copperfield,’ said Mr. Micawber, ‘you know. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure ninete en ninete en six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.”
David Copperfield (1850)

Made sense in “ old money” and still makes sense now

[LesHiboux]

You keep saying that Chansiri had the money. There's no evidence of that. Quite the opposite - setting up phantom businesses, etc.
Certainly he was prepared to spend SOMEBODY'S money, but it was total sh*t or bust. No long term strategy, just throw the mortgage on "red" and pray it's not "black". I'm sorry but I don't see Derby or Sheffield as poor innocent victims in any of this. That said, I think everybody agrees regarding parachute payments. They're a perverse policy.

It also looks like you've fallen for the propaganda over at Barnsley. The owners there were just charlatans. "Richest in the EFL". Yeah, and I've got some magic beans for sale.

What is your view on the wages to turnover ratio?

Speaking of turnover (as you mentioned RUFC's in comparison to Sheffields), there's a saying in finance which goes like this:
Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, but cash is king. The time before last in the Championship, RUFC posted a profit whereas Sheffield literally could not meet its monthly payroll liability.

In summary, terms have clearly been offered to two players that your club really should not be offering. It really feels like yet another throw of the dice.

It probably is another throw of the dice, I agree. We'll replace the word turnover with income. If a club has 25 000 fans paying twenty pounds to get in, how does it compete income-wise with a club with 50 000 fans paying twenty pounds to get in? By charging those 25 000 fans forty pounds entrance fee, like Wednesday have done. That way it has the same income and so is allowed to spend the same amount of its money. Because how much of its money it is allowed to spend is determined by that income. Thus, TS at Rotherham would be allowed to spend more than Sheikh Mansour at Chesterfield. How much money the chairman has is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if Chansiri had £15 billion like Mansour sitting in his bank account. What Chansiri is allowed to spend is determined by the club's income. Hence all this wheeling and dealing to try to make the club's income look bigger than it actually is, to allow him to spend more of that money. The phantom businesses are nothing to do with not having the money. The problem isn't having the money, it's being allowed to spend it. The parachute clubs have no such restrictions. It's a bit like your winning the lottery, wanting to buy a mansion, but only being able to buy a house which your annual salary will allow.

[avondalemiller]

The figure I've heard from various sources is that it's close to £20 000 a week, with augmentations in the event of promotion. Assuming that promotion is attained quickly - and that's a bold assumption with Moore at the helm - with add-ons and the like you're probably looking at close to £4 million, which is utterly bonkers. The reason why I believe that wage to be true is because when Winnall came to the club several years ago he was earning £17 000 a week, and that's definitely true. He'd a similar Championship pedigree to Smith (10/11 goals), so it fits. It sickened me at the time because he was getting more than Chris Wood at Leeds.

Les, make your mind up. Earlier you posted that Smith had a contract of £1.5M a year. But now you say that he's on about £20,000 a week, which is roughly £1M a year. So he gets £500,000 for a bonus for promotion?? Plus how can you compare Winnel being on £17,000 when it happened years ago to what Smith's agent has got him?
We were paying Blackstock around 10 to 12 grand a week but we haven;t been anywhere near that figure since.

I think you're guessing like a lot on here do. Can anyone on here tell me what i earn/pension is????

[LesHiboux]

Les, make your mind up. Earlier you posted that Smith had a contract of £1.5M a year. But now you say that he's on about £20,000 a week, which is roughly £1M a year. So he gets £500,000 for a bonus for promotion?? Plus how can you compare Winnel being on £17,000 when it happened years ago to what Smith's agent has got him?
We were paying Blackstock around 10 to 12 grand a week but we haven;t been anywhere near that figure since.

I think you're guessing like a lot on here do. Can anyone on here tell me what i earn/pension is????

I've asked several people I know and they've told me that he's getting a weekly salary approaching £20 000. It's reported speech, and Smith hasn't told me himself. I've been told some time ago that Wednesday's other strikers are currently earning a similar amount to that. I understand what you say about Winnought, but he was a similar-standard striker at that time to Smith. It's also worthwhile pointing out that the Owls' policy now is to sign out-of-contract players rather than pay whopping transfer fees as they did in the past, so you would assume that would help with the wages. Frankly, I hope that it is all guesswork re' Smith, because if it isn't then it bodes ill for the future.