• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

How much will we spend this summer?

How much will we spend this summer

  • £0m - £20m

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • £20m - £50m

    Votes: 3 5.7%

  • £50m - £75m

    Votes: 12 22.6%

  • £75 - £100m

    Votes: 13 24.5%

  • £100m+

    Votes: 24 45.3%
  • Total voters
    53
Lilbaz said:
It's just if 55% of turnover is wages. That leaves 15% for amortisation and agents fees. £75m from a £500m turnover. Or 10 players on 5 year contracts, that were bought for £37.5m. (Not including agents fees). The average cost of a player in the squad would have to be £15m.

That's not buying new. That's what we have.
Click to expand...
The 55% wages to turnover ratio includes all club employees, whereas I believe that FFP calculations are based on first team playing and coaching squad wage bill only. I think that a total wage to revenue ratio of 55% would leave somewhat more than £75m due to this factor.

Something I'm not aware of is how agents fees are factored in for FFP calculations. I think (though haven't specifically gone to check) that in our accounts the agents fees are included in the cost of the transfer (i.e. if a player is signed for £40m that includes the transfer and agents fees combined). If that is the case then it would probably make sense for that entire amount (transfer and agents fees) to be amortised over the length of the player contract.
 
I
Bedfordspurs said:
That’s been going back into the club all a long
So far… the owners haven’t taken anything out of the club from the accounts at least
Click to expand...
I know but I just want to know when all the additional effort pays off and there's more funds for football stuff
 
Finney Is Back said:
The 55% wages to turnover ratio includes all club employees, whereas I believe that FFP calculations are based on first team playing and coaching squad wage bill only. I think that a total wage to revenue ratio of 55% would leave somewhat more than £75m due to this factor.

Something I'm not aware of is how agents fees are factored in for FFP calculations. I think (though haven't specifically gone to check) that in our accounts the agents fees are included in the cost of the transfer (i.e. if a player is signed for £40m that includes the transfer and agents fees combined). If that is the case then it would probably make sense for that entire amount (transfer and agents fees) to be amortised over the length of the player contract.
Click to expand...
I’m sure I read Kieron Maguire say agents fees are included in that calc as you describe
 
metalgear said:
I

I know but I just want to know when all the additional effort pays off and there's more funds for football stuff
Click to expand...

Just check our net spend on players before we competed the stadium. To our net spend after.
Even with covid there is a big increase.
 
metalgear said:
I

I know but I just want to know when all the additional effort pays off and there's more funds for football stuff
Click to expand...
We’re one of the biggest spending clubs in all of Europe. Something we couldn’t say when we were at WHL
 
Also about player salaries. We have to be spending more than Arsenal in transfers and salaries. Don't forget Levy is the highest paid chairman and has made probably a billion or so for himself already. We've got good revenue but transfers and wages lag.
 
Last edited:
metalgear said:
Also about player salaries. We have to be spending more than Arsenal in transfers and salaries. Don't forget Levy is the highest paid chairman and has made probably a billion or so for himself already. We've got good revenue but transfers and wages lag.
Click to expand...

Why do we have to be spending more on arsenal on wages and saleries? Chelsea and utd spend far more than we do. Yet we finished higher.
 
Lilbaz said:
Why do we have to be spending more on arsenal on wages and saleries? Chelsea and utd spend far more than we do. Yet we finished higher.
Click to expand...

Ignore arsenal if you want, but there is a positive correlation between high wages and topping whichever industry you are in. There will be exceptions but it will always revert to the norm. i.e. like once in a blue moon Leicester. Man U, Liverpool, Real etc say otherwise
 
metalgear said:
Ignore arsenal if you want, but there is a positive correlation between high wages and topping whichever industry you are in. There will be exceptions but it will always revert to the norm. i.e. like once in a blue moon Leicester. Man U, Liverpool, Real etc say otherwise
Click to expand...

So if we spent double the transfer fee and wages on solanke we'd have more chance of winning something?
 
metalgear said:
Ignore arsenal if you want, but there is a positive correlation between high wages and topping whichever industry you are in. There will be exceptions but it will always revert to the norm. i.e. like once in a blue moon Leicester. Man U, Liverpool, Real etc say otherwise
Click to expand...
United are the showcase of why that measure doesn’t work
What is true is that money and time… makes a difference
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back