| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) 12:08 - Aug 10 with 2014 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
Trying to make out like we haven't spent a lot of money. Am I missing something. Lots of posts regarding, we have received this much in fees and only spent this much.
We are blowing every league one club and some championship clubs out the water when it comes to wages. We are spending big, no ?
Just embrace it. [Post edited 10 Aug 2021 12:09]
|  |
| |  |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:10 - Aug 10 with 1977 views | BloomBlue |
The incoming £s is higher than the outgoing £s when based on transfer fees so we're not spending a lot. However the unknown is wages and agent fees, it will be interesting to see how much we've spent on agent fees compared with other seasons |  | | |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:13 - Aug 10 with 1940 views | BlueySwede |
The point is that some of our ex players was probably on good wages as well. And we have let about 30 players (including loans) go. In terms of transfer fees we have done well with the fees for Dozzell, Bishop and Downes, which means in terms of transfer fees we have probably on the plus side.
We have made a bit of investment in wages, yes, but not nearly as much as some other teams fans are making out (the tag Chequebook FC is just silly). [Post edited 10 Aug 2021 12:14]
|  | | |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:17 - Aug 10 with 1876 views | itfcjoe |
Yeah I don't get it - we are offering bumper 3 and 4 year contracts out to players which are out of the stratosphere at most clubs at this level and it is allowing us to build an excellent squad which wouldn't look out of place int he Championship
We've raised some decent money on fees, and lost a lot of players - but we are big spenders in the league, our wage bill and transfer spending will show that |  |
| |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:29 - Aug 10 with 1735 views | CaptMickMills |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:17 - Aug 10 by itfcjoe |
Yeah I don't get it - we are offering bumper 3 and 4 year contracts out to players which are out of the stratosphere at most clubs at this level and it is allowing us to build an excellent squad which wouldn't look out of place int he Championship
We've raised some decent money on fees, and lost a lot of players - but we are big spenders in the league, our wage bill and transfer spending will show that |
But we are still keeping within 60% of turnover so proportionally not spending more on wages than other clubs can. | | | |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:41 - Aug 10 with 1645 views | Coco |
I think they are more trying to dispel the idea that we are being reckless and spending beyond our means. |  |
| |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:43 - Aug 10 with 1629 views | BryanPlug |
[content removed at owner's request] |  |
| |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:45 - Aug 10 with 1617 views | gordon |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:29 - Aug 10 by CaptMickMills |
But we are still keeping within 60% of turnover so proportionally not spending more on wages than other clubs can. |
How do we know this? |  | | |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:50 - Aug 10 with 1567 views | DinDjarin |
We have to follow the same rules as everyone else on expenditure so if we are within the boundaries of that then we are doing some clever business. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:53 - Aug 10 with 1536 views | DinDjarin |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:45 - Aug 10 by gordon |
How do we know this? |
Because them is da rules innit | | | |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:55 - Aug 10 with 1525 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
To be fair;
We have recouped £3m+ in transfer fees.
We have to work within the salary budget rules.
We can only do so much spending. |  |
| |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 13:07 - Aug 10 with 1476 views | HighgateBlue |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:50 - Aug 10 by DinDjarin |
We have to follow the same rules as everyone else on expenditure so if we are within the boundaries of that then we are doing some clever business. |
Yes but within the fanbase literally nobody understands those rules. I have repeatedly looked and asked for the rules themselves and nobody knows where they are.
The only website I have found with a purportedly authoritative take on SCMP is here:
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
That seems to indicate that cash injections from owners counts towards turnover. So our owners could put in £10m and add £6m to the wage bill, spending the other £4m on whatever they wanted. For example.
Everyone overlooks that.
But everyone appears to assume that player sales count towards turnover. This would seem to be right judging by the website above, even though in conventional accounting terms it is unlikely that income from a player sale would constitute turnover.
Just looking at player sales, if you spend £10m and bring in £10m, your allowable turnover will have increased by £10m even though you have a net zero spend on transfers. So that transfer activity allows you an additional £6m of salary expenditure. None of this is rocket science (Assuming this is indeed what the rules say), but it does appear to render SCMP toothless. Presumably that's why the league wanted to bring in a strict salary cap; as we know, they failed, and I suspect that's why we are seeing Gamechanger invest so heavily. |  | | |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 13:13 - Aug 10 with 1428 views | DinDjarin |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 13:07 - Aug 10 by HighgateBlue |
Yes but within the fanbase literally nobody understands those rules. I have repeatedly looked and asked for the rules themselves and nobody knows where they are.
The only website I have found with a purportedly authoritative take on SCMP is here:
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
That seems to indicate that cash injections from owners counts towards turnover. So our owners could put in £10m and add £6m to the wage bill, spending the other £4m on whatever they wanted. For example.
Everyone overlooks that.
But everyone appears to assume that player sales count towards turnover. This would seem to be right judging by the website above, even though in conventional accounting terms it is unlikely that income from a player sale would constitute turnover.
Just looking at player sales, if you spend £10m and bring in £10m, your allowable turnover will have increased by £10m even though you have a net zero spend on transfers. So that transfer activity allows you an additional £6m of salary expenditure. None of this is rocket science (Assuming this is indeed what the rules say), but it does appear to render SCMP toothless. Presumably that's why the league wanted to bring in a strict salary cap; as we know, they failed, and I suspect that's why we are seeing Gamechanger invest so heavily. |
Why should players not classed as turnover?
Dozzell, Bishop and Downes have been invested in by the club for over 10 yrs each.
If I run a business and buy stock and sell it on at a higher price then that is turnover on the end of yr balance sheet surely, | | | |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 13:21 - Aug 10 with 1357 views | Bluefish |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:17 - Aug 10 by itfcjoe |
Yeah I don't get it - we are offering bumper 3 and 4 year contracts out to players which are out of the stratosphere at most clubs at this level and it is allowing us to build an excellent squad which wouldn't look out of place int he Championship
We've raised some decent money on fees, and lost a lot of players - but we are big spenders in the league, our wage bill and transfer spending will show that |
We were big spenders the last 2 seasons as well but we did it on short term chances. Presumably much of that was wanting to avoid long term commitments with a takeover pending
Never forget Lambert had the biggest wage bill in the club history and we will be miles off that now
I would suspect our agent fees are enormous now and we have given up trying to fight that system |  |
| |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 14:10 - Aug 10 with 1242 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 13:21 - Aug 10 by Bluefish |
We were big spenders the last 2 seasons as well but we did it on short term chances. Presumably much of that was wanting to avoid long term commitments with a takeover pending
Never forget Lambert had the biggest wage bill in the club history and we will be miles off that now
I would suspect our agent fees are enormous now and we have given up trying to fight that system |
I guess if you keep repeating the myth that "Lambert had the biggest wage bill in the club history" enough times, eventually it'll come true. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 15:11 - Aug 10 with 1120 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 12:17 - Aug 10 by itfcjoe |
Yeah I don't get it - we are offering bumper 3 and 4 year contracts out to players which are out of the stratosphere at most clubs at this level and it is allowing us to build an excellent squad which wouldn't look out of place int he Championship
We've raised some decent money on fees, and lost a lot of players - but we are big spenders in the league, our wage bill and transfer spending will show that |
I've had this argument with several people on here before who seem to think these new players aren't coming in on lower to middle end Championship salaries. People argue we've got rid of 25+ but forget several of those were on peanuts compared to the new guys. I heard Hawkins even got more money at Mansfield than he was on here.
Of course, we will have to comply with the 60% of turnover rules but that doesn't mean our wage bill won't be higher than last season. Kudos to Ashton and the the commercial guys at the club for getting fees and increasing commercial revenues (mainly milking Ed Sheeran) this summer though! It's put us in a position where we can increase our wage bill. Getting promoted is a must otherwise we will need to sell next summer to sustain our wage bill. [Post edited 10 Aug 2021 15:12]
| | | |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 15:21 - Aug 10 with 1061 views | itfcjoe |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 15:11 - Aug 10 by tractorboy1978 |
I've had this argument with several people on here before who seem to think these new players aren't coming in on lower to middle end Championship salaries. People argue we've got rid of 25+ but forget several of those were on peanuts compared to the new guys. I heard Hawkins even got more money at Mansfield than he was on here.
Of course, we will have to comply with the 60% of turnover rules but that doesn't mean our wage bill won't be higher than last season. Kudos to Ashton and the the commercial guys at the club for getting fees and increasing commercial revenues (mainly milking Ed Sheeran) this summer though! It's put us in a position where we can increase our wage bill. Getting promoted is a must otherwise we will need to sell next summer to sustain our wage bill. [Post edited 10 Aug 2021 15:12]
|
I'd imagine come the end of this season the wage bill will end up somewhere around double of what it was.
These players ended up with big wage cuts and a lot weren't on big money before then - most players were earning in that £2-4k a week range, including the senior ones and now the new signings are in that £5-8k a week range which is a massive difference.
The proof will be in the numbers at the end of the year, and the sales will likely increase our turnover to cover it for SCMP this season, but don't be surprised if our wage bill is massively up despite all the noise.
People like Warnock know what is going on, they know where the money is at clubs - and for us, for once - it is here. We still have to sign smartly, and we look like we are doing so, but having the ability to offer £8k a week on 3-4 year deals is not something any other League 1 club bar presumably Sunderland can do | |
| |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 15:36 - Aug 10 with 995 views | longtimefan |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 13:07 - Aug 10 by HighgateBlue |
Yes but within the fanbase literally nobody understands those rules. I have repeatedly looked and asked for the rules themselves and nobody knows where they are.
The only website I have found with a purportedly authoritative take on SCMP is here:
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
That seems to indicate that cash injections from owners counts towards turnover. So our owners could put in £10m and add £6m to the wage bill, spending the other £4m on whatever they wanted. For example.
Everyone overlooks that.
But everyone appears to assume that player sales count towards turnover. This would seem to be right judging by the website above, even though in conventional accounting terms it is unlikely that income from a player sale would constitute turnover.
Just looking at player sales, if you spend £10m and bring in £10m, your allowable turnover will have increased by £10m even though you have a net zero spend on transfers. So that transfer activity allows you an additional £6m of salary expenditure. None of this is rocket science (Assuming this is indeed what the rules say), but it does appear to render SCMP toothless. Presumably that's why the league wanted to bring in a strict salary cap; as we know, they failed, and I suspect that's why we are seeing Gamechanger invest so heavily. |
Not sure your statement about all transfer income being classed as turnover is completely correct. The word profit is used in relation to this but is not fully defined. If it’s profit specific to a particular player then great, as Downes, Dozzell etc cost nothing. However it could mean transfer profit across a season which wouldn’t work so well. Unfortunately the link provided doesn’t define profit adequately. | | | |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 17:20 - Aug 10 with 849 views | tractorboy7777 |
| Why are some fans (on twitter especially) on 13:13 - Aug 10 by DinDjarin |
Why should players not classed as turnover?
Dozzell, Bishop and Downes have been invested in by the club for over 10 yrs each.
If I run a business and buy stock and sell it on at a higher price then that is turnover on the end of yr balance sheet surely, |
Players would be treated as assets in the accounts rather than stock. The treatment of those in accounts would be different. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
