• 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

Transfer speculation

billyiddo said:
I think our turnover will have grown a fair bit this past year or so what with the new TV deal which will in turn mean our available budget for wages will have risen too, as we generally seem to keep it at around 55% of our overall turnover - so in theory we could probably have another round of contract extensions and wage rises and keep players happy without having to go beyond our usual limitations
Click to expand...
The question is what about in the future? Will the same money be available in 2-3 years time? Once you give a player a raise, his salary will not be reduced when revenues decline, whereas the TV deal might not be as lucrative anymore. Of course by that time our revenues will have increased with the new stadium, so it might not matter. It seems logical to raise players' salaries, but not knowing the assumptions the club is making about future revenue, it might not be as straightforward as it appears to be on the surface.
 
alekaras said:
The question is what about in the future? Will the same money be available in 2-3 years time? Once you give a player a raise, his salary will not be reduced when revenues decline, whereas the TV deal might not be as lucrative anymore. Of course by that time our revenues will have increased with the new stadium, so it might not matter. It seems logical to raise players' salaries, but not knowing the assumptions the club is making about future revenue, it might not be as straightforward as it appears to be on the surface.
Click to expand...

We could incorporate into their contracts that if The next tv deal is a certain percentage or more lower then the current one then their salaries will reduce to an agreed acceptable level. That gives the club a bit of insurance against something that is highly unlikely to happen anyway.
 
SteveAWOL said:
The tabloids and SSN love to prattle on about transfer fees but those are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how much players end up costing their clubs.

A record £1.2bn was spent on Premier League transfers during the summer of 2016 but that is dwarfed by the £2.5bn which went on paying the players' wages over the course of the season
Click to expand...

THIS AND THIS!

Fees are not very important, particularly if you may break even on some players when you sell them, or make a profit on some, or make a loss on some... but wages are always straight out the door, just like agent fees
 
Bullet said:
THIS AND THIS!

Fees are not very important, particularly if you may break even on some players when you sell them, or make a profit on some, or make a loss on some... but wages are always straight out the door, just like agent fees
Click to expand...
this always irritated me when Wenger / Raffa had a low net spend compared to us - I did the sum Wages + fees and the difference was massive. It was also the reason why we always had to take punts on prospects not the fee (we could afford finished article) it was always the wages.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/888013876629037056

funny.gif
 
alekaras said:
The question is what about in the future? Will the same money be available in 2-3 years time? Once you give a player a raise, his salary will not be reduced when revenues decline, whereas the TV deal might not be as lucrative anymore. Of course by that time our revenues will have increased with the new stadium, so it might not matter. It seems logical to raise players' salaries, but not knowing the assumptions the club is making about future revenue, it might not be as straightforward as it appears to be on the surface.
Click to expand...

TV revenue is built on sand (Sky and BT are massively overspending and their viewing figures are falling)

Stadium revenue is built on rock
 
Bullet said:
THIS AND THIS!

Fees are not very important, particularly if you may break even on some players when you sell them, or make a profit on some, or make a loss on some... but wages are always straight out the door, just like agent fees
Click to expand...
Spot on for me. People continually underestimate the competitive advantage of lower overall wage spending. Has been very important to our success.
 
r-u-s-x said:
this always irritated me when Wenger / Raffa had a low net spend compared to us - I did the sum Wages + fees and the difference was massive. It was also the reason why we always had to take punts on prospects not the fee (we could afford finished article) it was always the wages.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the total net spend on transfer fees by the top 7 comes in at about £3.1bn from the turn of the century until the start of last season but that figure is completely dwarfed by the £10.5bn outlay on players' wages over that period :eek:

IMG_0724.PNG
 
Overseas deal is ~ £1bn a year and while BT and sky are still competing and with the possibility of bien joining can't see a fall anytime soon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back