The Money Game

[Stat Brother]

I really don't like football, for all the over inflated reasons given.

I don't like:-

The scandal.
The tittle tattle.
The front page news.
The revisionism, there was football before the Premier league.
The elitism, there are other leagues out side the Premier league
The constant air time
The fact it will over shadow the Olympics
The money
The cheating
The diving
The scrutinizing

I could go on


But I LOVE The Albion, it's a part of me, and has been since 1979.
There's The Albion and then there's soccerball.

 

[Rugrat]

I may be on my own here but if you work within a business that is self suffient then it dosent matter how much its employees earn as long as the incomings is more than the outgoings.

Not really. You have to (should) set aside a chunk for investment which can be stuff like building training facilities, improving stadium, and buying players. Alternative is to rely on shareholders (TB in our case) or borrowing. The shareholder funding is still a loan and a debt and the root of many clubs' problems. Thankfully TB is a real supporter but let's hope his other business interests mean he never needs his £££'s back!

Football finances went wrong when the Prem split from FL, creating the have's and the have not's. The FL should have dug in then and negotiated a decent share of the TV money in return for making it "easy". Maybe it was impossible but my recollection is they caved in like a wet paper bag

 

[Frutos]

But what if our wage structure caters for a player earning north of £15k a week?

I don't like the idea of anyone earning such amounts, but if we can safely afford it then we need to or we'll start to slip back downwards and be left behind.

It is, literally, the price which must be paid for top level football in this day and age.

 

[Beach Hut]

If we are going to the top then it will not come cheaply and Bloom will know this, whether he is using future revenues is another thing altogether but hopefully not.

 

[Uncle C]

League 1 player on £36,000 a week.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/league-one-player-36-000-week-092356183.html

 

[Beach Hut]

League 1 player on £36,000 a week.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/league-one-player-36-000-week-092356183.html

Everything that is wrong these days having gone bust twice - madness

 

[Aadam]

We are making the best of an agent centric football world.

Tony & Gus are using the allocated budget in their and the clubs interest.

At some point the bullshit Uefa living within the clubs means ruling will HAVE to match the real world market prices and wages.

You cannot have this one ruling and a spiralling market force doing the opposite. I firmly believe clubs will fight back the latter in yrs to come and start getting a more sensible and tighter margins gained by so called 3rd parties taking the piss out of football.

I sit less happy with a major sports broadcasting company having an online betting company(Sky) to feed its own coffers based on its own stories

You really think the UEFA rulling is bullshit? You think it's good for the fans that these owners of clubs can spend above their means and then destroy the clubs, ala Pompy, Rangers etc. I think the UEFA ruling is a brilliant thing, if implemented correctly. Players demands will have to decrease because no-one will be able to take them on if their wage is above the market rate.

Sooner or later there will be an equilibrium, for example, Championship players will have an average wage to what a Championship club can make in terms of money. I don't think you can carry on spending £20/£30k a week on a players wages, it isn't sustainable and ultimately when the shit hits the fan the owners do a runner and leave the club in a mess for the fans.

 

[tgretton87]

Players wages for the Albion will be capped at a rate that is acceptable for the club.

I remember an article with John Arne Rise payslip see pic. You have got to think how much is this player worth to the club.

1.Shirt Sales
2.How good he is will he win me promotion trophies?
3.Will the fans pay to see the player?.

I for one am happy the way the club is progressing.

 

[Gritt23]

Did I read, or hear somewhere, that we've managed to only be paying £10,000 of Mr. Bridge's £80,000 a week wages? If that's the case then surely Tony Bloom is saying that £10,000 a week is our upper wage cap.? Obviously if we hit the Premiership, all the players' agents will be straight in the office asking for more for their clients.

Not necessarily, as contracts are far more complex than the simplified "weekly wage" that the media still deal in as if we can only relate to a old working class, paid weekly mentality. Truth is with this deal is that he'll be here, what, 35 weeks, so the deal costs us a total of £350k.

Imagine if it was a permanent signing, of Wayne Bridge, but he'll only sign a one year deal, so no likelihood of him staying long-term, and therefore no chance of selling him, but the whole deal, incl transfer fee, signing on fee, and wages is a total of £350k, and we'd be doing cartwheels as a dirt cheap purchase.

Basically, I'm saying that I think each deal is probably viewed in it's entire cost, probably as an annual cost, rather than purely as a (maximum) weekly wage. Businesses just don't work that way.

 

[Hyperion]

You really think the UEFA rulling is bullshit? You think it's good for the fans that these owners of clubs can spend above their means and then destroy the clubs, ala Pompy, Rangers etc. I think the UEFA ruling is a brilliant thing, if implemented correctly. Players demands will have to decrease because no-one will be able to take them on if their wage is above the market rate.

Sooner or later there will be an equilibrium, for example, Championship players will have an average wage to what a Championship club can make in terms of money. I don't think you can carry on spending £20/£30k a week on a players wages, it isn't sustainable and ultimately when the shit hits the fan the owners do a runner and leave the club in a mess for the fans.

That was my point.

"You cannot have this one ruling and a spiralling market force doing the opposite. I firmly believe clubs will fight back the latter in yrs to come and start getting a more sensible and tighter margins gained by so called 3rd parties taking the piss out of football."

I think the Uefa ruling is ridiculous because thus far, they are not tackling the other end of the spectrum of rising fees/costs/wages

 

[Finchley Seagull]

People draw a line somewhere. That's why FC UNITED exsist. Many premier league fans have decided not to pay huge sums for tickets to see overpaid players play football (there is so far always another mug to take their place). We are seeing it through fans that think it's okay to boo their team becasue " they've paid their money" and they have paid for that right.

It is the world we live in you are right but that doesn't mean BHA have to buy into it. We are free to make our own choices and I am glad that so far Tony seems to be making good ones.

I think we have to remember that FC United were not formed as Man U fans were upset with the way things were going in football. They were happy winning trophies for years in this environment and were the club who pushed most for Sky and the huge income that would come through that. They split with the club because the Glazers came in. We have Tony Bloom as owner and he is a Brighton fan through and through and will do everything in the best interests of the club, including selling to the right people when one day he has had enough. He also clearly has a great business mind from what we hear so won't do anything to threaten the long term stability of the club e.g. gamble on promotion.

I agree in principle with the original poster in that players get paid ridiculous amounts but living in the world we do, we have to compete and with the expansion of the stadium we are in a position to do so finally.

 

[Aadam]

That was my point.

"You cannot have this one ruling and a spiralling market force doing the opposite. I firmly believe clubs will fight back the latter in yrs to come and start getting a more sensible and tighter margins gained by so called 3rd parties taking the piss out of football."

I think the Uefa ruling is ridiculous because thus far, they are not tackling the other end of the spectrum of rising fees/costs/wages

Ah right, I get you. Sorry, just woke up and admit I missed that point. I agree with you, there needs to be something to control the wages and UEFA think that this will force the clubs to pay less. If you think about it, it should level out players wages once clubs refuse to break their own limits and sign players on higher wages. There will always be those clubs that can afford to; recently relegated clubs in receipt of parachute payments. However, something has to change.

I've always thought a percentage salary agreement would be better. Something like, no club is allowed to spend more than x% of turnover on wages. So rather than having an £x per year wage limit, you have a x% of turnover per year and players sign for a percentage, rather than a fixed monetary amount. For example CMS earns 3% of turnover rather than what ever he gets (as an example). That way, if the club do well and get promoted your % is worth more. If you get relegated your % is worth less. It's always going to be enough to survive on, but it stops the clubs paying 90% of turnover and more on wages alone.

 

[Hyperion]

Ah right, I get you. Sorry, just woke up and admit I missed that point. I agree with you, there needs to be something to control the wages and UEFA think that this will force the clubs to pay less. If you think about it, it should level out players wages once clubs refuse to break their own limits and sign players on higher wages. There will always be those clubs that can afford to; recently relegated clubs in receipt of parachute payments. However, something has to change.

I've always thought a percentage salary agreement would be better. Something like, no club is allowed to spend more than x% of turnover on wages. So rather than having an £x per year wage limit, you have a x% of turnover per year and players sign for a percentage, rather than a fixed monetary amount. For example CMS earns 3% of turnover rather than what ever he gets (as an example). That way, if the club do well and get promoted your % is worth more. If you get relegated your % is worth less. It's always going to be enough to survive on, but it stops the clubs paying 90% of turnover and more on wages alone.

I think Uefa have recognised the problems but as usual, the rulings and laws are all a bit wet. One way or another, the bubble will burst of course. I was just disapointed that Uefa did not grab the bull by the horns more and tackle the "Agents" issue first but hey, money talks.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

All this nonsense would make perhaps a little more sense had Dick Knight got the stadium built and financed as originally intended and the Tony bloom came along and spent £100m plus on players in the Championship..

No we are going about things the right way,what do we expect-never to spend any money at all on wages-the clubs that slate us put us in this position in the first place...we are only spending small amounts in comparison to others and if clubs pay a footballer a vast sum per week who can blame the player really?

 

[withdeanwombat]

Our answer is obvious : send scouts out on Sunday to trawl the Sunday League,sign up the best players.Not only will there be a smaller wage bill,but they'll probably chip in for pitch hire,and wash their own kit.

 

[tgretton87]

Not necessarily, as contracts are far more complex than the simplified "weekly wage" that the media still deal in as if we can only relate to a old working class, paid weekly mentality. Truth is with this deal is that he'll be here, what, 35 weeks, so the deal costs us a total of £350k.

Imagine if it was a permanent signing, of Wayne Bridge, but he'll only sign a one year deal, so no likelihood of him staying long-term, and therefore no chance of selling him, but the whole deal, incl transfer fee, signing on fee, and wages is a total of £350k, and we'd be doing cartwheels as a dirt cheap purchase.

Basically, I'm saying that I think each deal is probably viewed in it's entire cost, probably as an annual cost, rather than purely as a (maximum) weekly wage. Businesses just don't work that way.

Quite right Wayne Bridges market worth transfer wise must be in the region of 3-5 million. So to get him for a season at an overall cost of £350-500 thousand Bargain of the season.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Our answer is obvious : send scouts out on Sunday to trawl the Sunday League,sign up the best players.Not only will there be a smaller wage bill,but they'll probably chip in for pitch hire,and wash their own kit.

Sure,but we may have a few trades out there too being part timers-a spot of plumbing may be required or a couple of light fixings may need attention once i a while..

It's win win

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Players wages for the Albion will be capped at a rate that is acceptable for the club.

I remember an article with John Arne Rise payslip see pic. You have got to think how much is this player worth to the club.

1.Shirt Sales
2.How good he is will he win me promotion trophies?
3.Will the fans pay to see the player?.

I for one am happy the way the club is progressing.

With that sort of income tax, he's keeping the NHS going on his own.

 

[tgretton87]

With that sort of income tax, he's keeping the NHS going on his own.

I remember my old man telling me about this story it all came out because of the Liverpool players perks. Harry Kewell was on £70 grand a week + had 6 x Business class flights back to OZ included in his contract where as Rise had 5 x easyjet flights to Oslo and he had to pay for his extra luggage allowance.