Guess the fees

[MartinB]

All the sales we have made have been undisclosed, not even a clue on what we have got for players. Wondering what the thoughts are of people on this forum what fees were involved and what wages we have offloaded.

[ArmthorpeRover]

TBH I don't care. I don't see the need for every minute detail to be revealed......we were told high earners need  to be off the threadbare squad so we can strengthen in numbers. We seem to be doing that and signing good players too. I'm happy with that.

[MartinB]

But when did transfer fees become a minute detail of a football club?

[Wild Rover]

No more than 200K for anyone.

[Dutch Uncle]

Ok - here's my totally uninformed estimate - the figures are definitely wrong but hopefully they can illustrate that IMHO the club is doing the right thing and handling it really well:

13 'High Earners' were costing 3M- using a bit of rounding let's say 60K per week
How about split as follows:

•   6k/week: Stock, Coppinger, O'Connor, Friend
•   5k/week: Martis, Sullivan, M.Woods
•   4k/week: Bennett, Brown, Beye, Spurr 
•   3k/week: G.Woods
•   2k/week: Husband

Let's assume we need to get this down to 40K a week to avoid possible FFP penalties

Losing Friend, Stock, O'Connor and Beye would then lose us 22K, putting us at 38K per week

Let's assume new players are all at 2k/week so Cotterill, Syers, Blake, Jones, Quinn, Keegan adds 12k putting us at 50K/week

Assume the 5 youth together make 1k/week puts us at 51K/week

Assume Friend (250K?), O'Connor (150K?) and Stock (100K?) funds can be offset against it - i.e. we can take off 10K per week

Then we are at 41K per week

So either at least one more high earner has to go to allow further incomings, or the board has to subsidise

For me we are handling a nigh impossible task really well and still have a team which looks like it can compete

Well done Deano & the board 

[streatham dave]

No more than 200, 000 for all of them together more realistic. Case of getting wage bill down simple as.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I think thats a pretty good all round estimate DU 

But the main thing here is you succinctly put how well managed the closed season transformation has been. Hats off to the club for this 

[MartinB]

Add Hayter & Oster to those earning a pretty penny too? Prob $4,000-$5,000 each per week (sorry no pound sign)

[Dutch Uncle]

Martin - they were part of last years 8M bill already trimmed down to the 13 @ 3M above

As JR says - it is a real travesty that there are no parachute payments for teams relegated from the Championship - especially when entering the first season of FFP restrictions

[MartinB]

Thanks for clearing that up DU just trying to understand what is happening to my club financially. So 40k per week would see a squad of 20 on 2k per week....tough ask IMO.  Although by the looks of this below some of the FFP doesn't seem fair. The ridiculous wages in PL are to blame.  This has filtered down.   

- Clubs promoted to the Premier League will have to pay a 'Fair Play Tax' on the excess by which they failed to fulfil the Fair Play requirement ranging from 1% on the first £100,000 to 100% on anything over £10m. Any proceeds will be distributed equally amongst those clubs that complied with the FFP regulations for the season in question.
- Clubs relegated to League 1 will not be entitled to any payout derived from the Fair Play Tax and will be required to comply with the FFP rules in operation in that division.
- League 1 clubs are currently operating a 'pilot' of the SCMP with clubs complying with a 75% threshold but with no sanctions being applicable this season. This threshold will reduce to 65% in 2012/13 and 60% in 2013/14 with sanctions (transfer embargoes) being applicable in both seasons.

[Wild Rover]

Ok - here's my totally uninformed estimate - the figures are definitely wrong but hopefully they can illustrate that IMHO the club is doing the right thing and handling it really well:

13 'High Earners' were costing 3M- using a bit of rounding let's say 60K per week
How about split as follows:

•   6k/week: Stock, Coppinger, O'Connor, Friend
•   5k/week: Martis, Sullivan, M.Woods
•   4k/week: Bennett, Brown, Beye, Spurr 
•   3k/week: G.Woods
•   2k/week: Husband

Let's assume we need to get this down to 40K a week to avoid possible FFP penalties

Losing Friend, Stock, O'Connor and Beye would then lose us 22K, putting us at 38K per week

Let's assume new players are all at 2k/week so Cotterill, Syers, Blake, Jones, Quinn, Keegan adds 12k putting us at 50K/week

Assume the 5 youth together make 1k/week puts us at 51K/week

Assume Friend (250K?), O'Connor (150K?) and Stock (100K?) funds can be offset against it - i.e. we can take off 10K per week

Then we are at 41K per week

So either at least one more high earner has to go to allow further incomings, or the board has to subsidise

For me we are handling a nigh impossible task really well and still have a team which looks like it can compete

Well done Deano & the board 

Dont forget Mick Walker and the CEO need adding in. even if only a grand a week between them ( unlikely as that is ).

[Dutch Uncle]

Thanks for clearing that up DU just trying to understand what is happening to my club financially. So 40k per week would see a squad of 20 on 2k per week....tough ask IMO.  Although by the looks of this below some of the FFP doesn't seem fair. The ridiculous wages in PL are to blame.  This has filtered down

Just to make it clear Martin - I have no inside information and I am completely guessing based on odd figures appearing on threads on here

Agree with your conclusions re FFP being unfairly implemented, although I do strongly support the principle and what it is trying to achieve.

[lee.j09]

Ok - here's my totally uninformed estimate - the figures are definitely wrong but hopefully they can illustrate that IMHO the club is doing the right thing and handling it really well:

13 'High Earners' were costing 3M- using a bit of rounding let's say 60K per week
How about split as follows:

•   6k/week: Stock, Coppinger, O'Connor, Friend
•   5k/week: Martis, Sullivan, M.Woods
•   4k/week: Bennett, Brown, Beye, Spurr 
•   3k/week: G.Woods
•   2k/week: Husband

Let's assume we need to get this down to 40K a week to avoid possible FFP penalties

Losing Friend, Stock, O'Connor and Beye would then lose us 22K, putting us at 38K per week

Let's assume new players are all at 2k/week so Cotterill, Syers, Blake, Jones, Quinn, Keegan adds 12k putting us at 50K/week

Assume the 5 youth together make 1k/week puts us at 51K/week

Assume Friend (250K?), O'Connor (150K?) and Stock (100K?) funds can be offset against it - i.e. we can take off 10K per week

Then we are at 41K per week

So either at least one more high earner has to go to allow further incomings, or the board has to subsidise

For me we are handling a nigh impossible task really well and still have a team which looks like it can compete

Well done Deano & the board 

very much doubt that husband will be on 2k per maybe a 1/4 of that

[silent majority]

Martin - they were part of last years 8M bill already trimmed down to the 13 @ 3M above

As JR says - it is a real travesty that there are no parachute payments for teams relegated from the Championship - especially when entering the first season of FFP restrictions

Let me add a little more. There is much more in players contracts than just the weekly wage, there are bonuses of certain types, signing on fees, even when renewing contacts by the way, and the agents get a slice of all that too! That's the real reason that transfer fees are not publicised that much and that's because sometimes they are irrelevant when looking at the bigger picture.

[MartinB]

SM thanks for that, these types of things that we fans usually don't consider.  Overall I think it may be a good thing for an update from JR and the board (maybe through you?) to let us know how we are progressing with the new business plan. This IMO would help all understand the path the club is taking as a whole. If we could all pull in the same direction there would be a great feeling with this club.

[ravenrover]

My understanding from a recent former employee was that there was a £100plus bonus just for being selected to sit on the bench, and more if you actually came on as sub. This was in addition to all the usual bonuses.

[graingrover]

Jeez when you see figures like that banded about then think of the spirit and athleticism of the olympic Games it makes me cringe at the false values that football has adopted.

[silent majority]

Jeez when you see figures like that banded about then think of the spirit and athleticism of the olympic Games it makes me cringe at the false values that football has adopted.

Expect a big backlash from fans and journo's when the Premier League kicks off next week.